Brahman-realisation and become finally liberated in the sense that they realise themselves to be the absolute Brahman, the expression Brahmaldeh' being understood to be the absolute Brahman itself as lb%a and the plural number in that expression having reference to the apparent plurality of the adepts (sadhakas) before their ukti. Suresvara quotes 19a this Mundaka text in his Vartika and follows up Samkara's interpretation by pointing out that, according to this textentering into the order of sainyasa, in which all karma is renounced, is indispensable for Brahman. realisation. According to Sankara and Suresvara, Vedanta. eijiana' in the Mundaka text is the effective Brahman-realisation arising from the Muhamahyas of the Upanisads and sainyasayoga' is the sainyasarana itself, which is here described as yga in the sense of unshakable fixation in Brahman (coalabrahmanisha). Those who are familiar with the traditions of the Sankara school know well that this Mundaka text is usually cited as the distinc tive motto of the saidyashrama as conceived by Sankara and his followers and that this is solemnly chanted on all occasions when anything is piously offered in the name of Sailkara or of any of his pentifical representatives. Mandana, on the contrary, disso ciates this Mundaka text completely from the Sainyasakrama and explains it in a manner which would be characteristic of onewho refuses to believe in the supreme importance of that asrama According to him, > the expression Vodautatijiana refers only to the indirect verbal cognition of the truth arising from Vedanti texts and not to the direct and complete realisation resulting from constant meditation; the expression <Sainyasayagdt' refers, not to ainyasarana, but to the worshipful surrender of all actions and their results at the feet of God and constant meditation that all this is Brahman ; and that the expression fBrahmalbasy" refers to the non-eternal producible world presided over by God Breyman (karyadrainaldka) and does not refer to the absolute Brahman. Further, it may be deduced, as a very natural and perfectly logical corollary, from Mandanas criticism of Saikara's views on the relation of karma and jana, thatif Mandana should be asked to give his interpretation of the word fatha' in the first Brahastra, he would have no hesitation to say that feaths' should be taken in the sense of fafter investigating and understanding the nature of baring' (ker hubodhanentarant) and that one could hardly see any compelling necessity to take it in the sense of fafter equipping oneself with the fourfold scheme of preparatory means' (sadhana
catesayasarpattyundantaran. When considering Mandanas attitude towards Sankara in contrast with Suresvara's attitude
a B¢hdVar Part III, P¥a64, vene 2
See footnote f9०, supra
