the negative character of auidyainfort in his endeavour to reconcile its reality with the Advaita doctrine. In respect of prapadbhada, he would frankly treat it as an irreducible negative reality, present as such alongside the absolute Brahma and forming the main theme of non-dualistic Vedantic texts. There is thus discernible in the text of the Brahmansiddimore particularly in the Siddhanta, ample ground for taking bhavadorita to be a distinctive feature of Mandana's contribution to Advaita, A careful consideration of Mandana's bhavaduata in comparison with what Suresvaracarya has said in his works with reference to krapayabhata and abidyantivrtti would disclose a striking divergence, and in some places, an irreconcilable - opposition between the views of Mandana and Suresvara in regard to bhavadoita, Madhusudanasarasvati draws pointed attention, in his Vedantakalpalatika , to the uncompromising antagonism which Suresvara has shown to bhavadvaita in the Bhadrayaaaudrtika One of the Vartika texts quoted in this connection in the Vedanthalphati%a="Nabhatanisthdryatrapi isdhah anyta$ar८ " is understood by Madhusudanasarasvatr 0 to refute the view that brupdficabhana should be taken to be an irreducible negative reality present alongside the absolute Brahman; and in fact one may go a step further and find in this Vartika text "nabhuanish yatrapi ” a direct protest against Mandana's text-"Praphicasya pravilyak subtna pratipadyadue ”which forms the main basis of bhoadoarita. By the way, it may be useful to consider here the attitude towards bhaoadoarita of the Advaitinswho came after Mandana and Suresvara. Vimuktatman, the author of the 1ssia, may be taken to have accepted Mandana's bhauddoarita or Shivata, as Madhusudanasarasvat 10a suggests, for all practical purposes and the Istasiddhi puts forward two views " about the nature of avidyahirtti, one view treating it as a fi indenable something (pathicampradra)entiruarantiyan, in the sense that it cannot be said to be absolutely existent (at), or absolutely non-existent (aasat) or both or aroucalya as the equivalent of being removable by valid knowledge Ununniuartyn); and second piec reducing it to Brahman-knowledge (Vidy४) or the pure, absolute Soul (atman). Anandabodha D does not vacillate between these two views as Vimuktatman does and maintains, in his Nyayamakaranda, the former of these two views and discards
the latter; and perhaps this is why the view that arithydrivrtti is a
९ Vedalp, s. BhT. No3, Benare-r980, pp. 26 to 28.
to v€dalp, p. 28, lines 6 to 8.
vdalp, p. 26, lines 3 to 9.
| I.5.G.o.s. LXVp. 85, p. A to 86Ine a ;andchapter VIII.
1Ay-, Chow, s.s. God, pp. 355 to 35} nd p. 35, nea a to 5.
