x 1eaving out himself, and of the tenth among them, who was thus unable to realise himself as the tenth, actually realising his identity as the tenth directly from the statement “Thou art the tenth ', which revealed his identity as the tenth, Sure5vara argues that Sabda, in certain special cases, is capable of producing a n immediate cognition with a non-relational content. In this con nection, in referring to Mandama's view and similar views and refuting them, Sureswara uses in his Wartika, sneering and ironical expressions, with reference to Mandama and such of his contem poraries and predecessors as happened to agree with Mapgama and describes those thinkers as “pedantic wiseacres ' (22 47: imary *), “profoundly conversant with recondite principles ' (gamabhraryayuru८dia! *), “commplacent in their determination of the sense of the Veda (7dathari:5८ital *), and “courageous and great MImaisakas" (mahammaihsaka dhirah *). In a similar context in the Wari$277y0siddhi, Sure5vara sets forth and refutes the views of Brahmadata and Mangana in respect of the causa] relation between Brahman-realisation and the Upanisadic Sabda and in this context, Sure5vara says that these philosophers take their standhaughtily on the strength of their owrn tradition and say what they say in this matter (ऽ200547i:Pradayabalau0947abhad alha4*) It is clear from the context that the phrase-ऽ00547ipradayabal८ 01starbhat-is intended to be applied to both of the views that are clubbed together in the same paragraph, as forming the subject of refutation in verse 67 of chapter I, in the Waiऽ८armay0 ऽddha. In order to understand clearly the bearing of these Sanskrit phrases as applied to Mangama by Sureswara, on the contrast between these two Advaitins, it would be necessary to remember that Mapama's exposition of the Advaita doctrine was based mainly on a pre-5arikara phase of it, while Sureswara' exposition of that doctrine was entirely dependent upon its 5arikara phase. The significance of the expression “dhtraः ' as applied to Mandama may be understoodfully, if it is remembered that the spirit of philosophical accommodation which Mandama exhibits towards the Naiyayikas, in respect of the nature of the ०nition arising from Sabda and which his supporters and impartial critics would describe as the sweet reasonablemess of a non-partisan Advaitin, is derided by Sure5vara as amounting to were * मण्डनादीनां तञ्चाख्यामुत्थापयति--अन्ये त्विति ।
