In these pages an attempt is made to present the philosophy of Advaita from a study of the Vivarana-prameya-sangraha Pancadasi and Drg-drsya-viveka. Tradition ascribes the authorship of the Vivarana-prarmeya-sangraha to Vidyaranya whom it identifies with Madhava the son of Mayana, and the brother of Sayana and Bhoganatha. The Pancadasi is thought to be the work of Vidyaranya and Bharatitirtha. With regard to the authorship of the Drg-drsya-viveka opinion is divided. Brahrnananda Bharati, one of the commentators on the work, regards Bharatitirtha as its author. In some manuscripts bearing the commentary of Ananda-jnana, it is found that Sri Sankaracarya is saluted as its author. Niscaladasa, in his Vrtti-Prabhakara, ascribes the book to Vidyaranya.
Vidyaranya seems to have lived in the fourteenth century A.D. as the family guru of Harihara I and Bukka, the founders of the Vijayanagara kingdom, and appears to have occupied the gadi of the Srngeri Matha from c. 1377 to 1386 A.D. Tradition attaches great importance to Vidyaranya. He is regarded as having been the friend, philosopher, and guide of the early rulers of Vijayanagara, and in the field of religion and philosophy, he is classed as the greatest of the post-Sankara Advaitins.
The tendency of late has been to discard the traditional identity between Vidyaranya and Madhava. Madhava, the reputed author of such works as the Parasara-smrti-vyakhya, Vyavahara-mddhava, Kala-madhaviya, Jivanmukti-viveka, and Jaiminiya-nyayamala-vistara, was the brother of Sayana, the author of the Veda-bhasya. Both of them were politicians connected with the founding and development of the Vijayanagara empire. But Vidyaranya, it is said, was only "an insignificant ascetic who presided over the Srngeri Matha from c. 1377 to 1386 A.D." The works that are definitely attributed to Vidyaranya are only the 'Pancadasi' and the 'Vivarana-prameya- sangraha.’
The major portion of the contention of those who are against identifying Vidyaranya with Madhava is based on the argument from silence. It is said that the several inscriptions that refer to Vidyaranya and his several predecessors and successors in the Srngeri Matha do not identify him with Madhava, that the few inscriptions that refer to Madhavacarya and his brother Sayana never indicate any connection between him and Vidyaranya, that the works of Madhava and those of Vidyaranya do not bear testimony to the identity-theory and that no work can be cited either of contemporary authors or even of writers who flourished one or two centuries later which might clearly prove the identity. The other main argument advanced against the identity theory is that it is extremely belated.
It is admitted that Bharatitirtha and Vidyatirtha were the preceptors of Madhava, for Madhava himself tells us that he was favored by them. While Vidyaranya in his works praises Sankarananda and Vidyatirtha, it is said, nowhere he refers to Bharatitirtha. Madhava acknowledges Bharatitirtha as his preceptor, but Vidyaranya in the Vivarana-prameya-sangraha and the Pancadasi does not mention the name of Bharatitirtha at all. Hence, it is asked how both Madhava and Vidyaranya can be identical. Further, it is observed, that throughout the works of Madhava, King Bukka I is referred to as the patron, while the inscriptions of Vidyaranya are all of the reign of Harihara II (1377-1404). It is also contended that none of the inscriptions relating to Vidyaranya shows any connection between him and the building of the capital city of the Vijayanagara empire and that in those inscriptions the capital is called Vijayanagara and not Vidyanagara." Even supposing that Vidyanagara was another name of the same city, it is said, that the ascetic connected with the name and foundation of the empire, if any, should have been Vidyatirtha, the preceptor of Madhava, and not Vidyaranya. Since Madhava as well as his father were family ministers and teachers of the dynasty of Sangama, and since Madhava’s teacher was Vidyatirtha, the Pontiff of the Kanci Kamakoti Matha, it is likely that, when Sangama's son founded a new empire with Madhava as the chief minister, the latter sent for his teacher from which time Vidyatirtha must have taken his seat at Srngeri. From these and other considerations, it is sought to be proved that the identity theory is an invention of later admirers of Vidyaranya, who were anxious to make him the author of as many works as possible.
From the evidence we have on hand, it cannot be conclusively proved that Madhava and Vidyaranya were identical. But the identity theory seems to be more probable than the opposite theory. From two copper-plate grants both dated 1336 A.D., we gather that Harihara I went out hunting in the forest on the southern bank of the Tungabhadra, where he saw a hound and a hare together in spite of their natural enmity, that he narrated this incident to Vidyaranya who was practicing asceticism in the temple of Virupaksa and who advised Harihara to found a city on the spot called Vidyanagara, and that Harihara accordingly built the city from which he began to rule his kingdom. To question the authenticity of these grants on the grounds that the formation of the letters is a modem and that the incident which they record, viz., a hound and a hare being on good terms, is legendary, is not sound. '"It is not impossible that Harihara I should have built a capital for himself on the advice of Vidyaranya; nor is it unlikely that the city of Vidyanagara or Vijayanagara should have been built about 1336." The evidence of the copper-plate grants is corroborated by a few inscriptions of the Tuluva period which declare that the city of Vidyanagara was built by King Harihara I and named Vidyanagara in the name of Vidyaranya Sripada. Two inscriptions dated respectively 1538 and 1559 A.D. state that Harihara Raya built Vidyanagara in the name of Vidyaranya.
This evidence proves that Vidyaranya was connected with the founding of the Vijayanagara empire, that Vijayanagara had another name Vidyanagara almost from the very beginning, that the assertion that the inscriptions referring to Vidyaranya are all of the reign of Harihara II is groundless, and that it is needless to connect the name Vidyanagara with Vidyatirtha. "If the name Vidyanagara was really derived from Vidyaranya as the Tuluva inscriptions would have us believe, it cannot be denied that he had some share direct or indirect in building the city." It is evident from the inscriptions that Vidyaranya's counsel was sought by all the early kings of the Vijayanagara empire. Of Harihara II it is said, "By the grace of Vidyaranyamuni, he acquired the empire of knowledge unattainable by other kings." We learn that when Vidyaranya paid a visit to Varanasi where he stayed for some time (about 1356 A.D.), Bukka I desired that Vidyaranya should return to Vijayanagara. He was not sure that his request would be complied with. So he secured a srimukha from the senior Sripada of Srngeri commanding Vidyaranya to return to Vijayanagara and despatched it to Vidyaranya together with his own request. It is said that Vidyaranya came back 'as he had great respect for his guru ', That Vidyaranya was famous during the time of the early kings of Vijayanagara for his wisdom and piety and that it is possible that the kings did seek his advice are evident from an inscription of Harihara II in which we find the following passage: "May the wonderful glances of Vidyaranya which resemble showers of camphor dust, garlands of kalhara flower, rays of the moon, sandal paste, and waves of milk-ocean, and which shower the nectar of compassion, bring you happiness. Can he be Brahms? We do not see four faces. Can he be Visnu? He has not got four arms. Can he be Siva? No oddness of the eye is observed. Having thus argued for a long time, the learned have come to the conclusion that Vidyaranya is the supreme light incarnate."