[Footnote 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.] [Footnote 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.] [Footnote 599: In his commentary on the opening of the Chând. Up. Madhva seems to imply a Trinity consisting of Vishṇu, Ramâ (=Lakshmî) and Vâyu.] [Footnote 600: This is expressly stated at the end of the commentary on the Brih. Ar. Upan.] [Footnote 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.] [Footnote 602: Brih. Ar. Upan. III. 7. 2.] [Footnote 603: Among them are the Maṇimanjarî, the Madhvavijaya and the Vâyustuti, all attributed to a disciple of Madhva and his son.] CHAPTER XXX LATER VISHNUISM IN NORTH INDIA 1