Vidyaranya. As a result of a careful consideration of the host of literary.evidences adduced in the foregoing paragraphs.from authoritative Vedantic littrature, beside the conflicting and eonfused. accounts of Mandana and Suresvara furnished in the pseudo-biographies above referred tothree important conclusions emerge:-firstlythat Mandana, the author of the Brahmasiddha was never a disciple of Sarikara, did not become a sainyasin, was not identical with Suresvara and represented an advaitic prasthana different from Satikaraprasthana; secondlythat Suresvara, who was known as Visvarupa in his hastharama, was a pupil of Kumarila when he was a chastha and came to be known by the name of Suresvara when he became a sainyasin anda disciple of Sankara ; that, in his Wrtika and Naiskarnyasiddhhe controverted many an advaitic doctrine expounded by Mandana. in his Brahmasiddhi ; and that Suresvara nowhere departed from his avowed allegiance to Saikkaraprasthana; and thirdlythat Mandana should have written his Brahmasiddhi after seeing Sankara's bhasyas, more particularly the Brahmanstrabhasa and that Suresvara should have written his Nariskaranyasiddhi mainly as a Shinkara counterblast to the Brahomasiddh probably in compliance with Sankara's desire. If the Mandaa-Sur%60ara equation looms large, at presentin the world of advaitic scholars and continues to hold sway over the belief of many of them, it is because they have not so far examined the grounds of this belief in the light of the internal evidence available in the Brahma sidad and a host of other advaitic works; and it may now be reasonably expected that, after the publication of Mandana's Brahmasiddh, scholars will see that Mandana and Suresvara are two distinct individualsIt may not be out of place to add here that, even in the midst of the scurrilous and blasphemous references to Sankara in the Madhva work, called 900 Manimanjari, one could find that.the correct tradition differentiating Manjana from Visvarupa is preserved.
SECTION III
MANDANA's PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY HIS CONTRIBUTION TO INDIAN PHILOSOPHY.
Mandana's date is not difficult to determineFrom the references *o considered in the previous section, it would be clear
that he was later than Bharthari and earlier than Saikanatha
Mangimijrt, by Aryanapandita, Canto VII, yease = 8 and 9,
|nurodietion, pp. vand 3); setAppendix v, p. 5x'aph s; seekjuी. mai, Mad . Univ. Skt.s. No. 3, pp. to and I and compare it with Br. Sid.,Part, PPःrs to t8;See Appendix III for quotations from Kimina's por set footnotes 83, 82, 88 and 5 to
