to Visvarupa's Balarida 15a would show that Anandanubhava is presumably having in his mind, in this connection, the strong advocacy by Visvarupa of the Bandhi-kainyasa in the lengthy discussion of this subject, which is appended to his commentary on verse 66 in the Praya5citta dhyaya of Yajianalyasirti Anandagiri, who wrote a commentary on Anandanubhava's Nyaya. atadiphali and also a commentary on Suresvara's Vartika, besides several other workshas no doubt whatever that Suresvara and Mandana are different persons and points out that Suresvara repudiates a Mandana's view in favour of prasadikhyina in the Brihadarayakaartika. Amalananda, in his Kalpatr4, 5A draw attention to the fact that Mandana, as an advaitin, criticises some of Sankara's views and assumes that Suresvara's Vartika z should be taken to elucidate Samkara's views and that Mandana and Suresvara were two different advaitins adopting different view points. Vidyaranya, in his Vidaranaprabyasagraha quotes Suresvara under the name Visparipaddrya, thereby clearly indi cating the identity of Visvarupa and Suresvara and refers to Mandana, 7 the author of Branasiddhi, as a distinct person. In his Vartiaasra, Vidyaranya refers to Brahmasiddhikara as a great writer 18 who had an insight into the spirit of the veda (Vedarahasycuit) and quotes the verse “ Sarvapratyaya vedy; va
from the Brahuasidhi in support of one of the alter native interpretations of the text that ad%s xt 2¢ti. It is clearfrom this portion of the Vartikasaraand the commentary thereon, called Legisagraha, that Vidyaranya and the commentator Mahesvaratrtha take Mandanamisra and Suresvara to be different persons. To avoid any possible misapprehension here, it would be necessary to observe that, according to Vidya. ranya's analysis in the artikasara Suresvara interprets the text athato add ti met in three ways in his Vartika; that the first interpretation avoids hasad and takes the negative text to express directly the negation of the world (prapaica); that the second interpretation has recourse to loksatta and takes the negative text to indirectly convey an afirmation of the identity of jua with Brahman ; that the third interpretation also
proceeds on the basis of lakad and presents the negative text
B1. Kri. Part II, T. S.s. No. LXXX, pp. 29 to 3
19 See footnote 4, supra.
See footnote 137, supra
Kalpataru, p. 92
Viv. १rn. sam . vi S.S. ०. 7, P. 94lines 9 to 1 1.
vty. Pra. Sad.wi, s.s. . 7, p. 24lines at to 4.
I A krt. S. Ch. S.s ., p. 573, lines 4, 5 and 6.
S. ०a virt. S.Ch. S.S., p. 573, lines 5 and 6.
२९ Yi Ch. .., PP. 574, 575, verses , 93,
S. SS573 82, 83, 8497
