as conveying indirectly the identity of joa with Isoara ; and that the second interpretation is more satisfactory than the first and that the third is most satisfactory. It should also be noted that while there is some agreement between Suresvara and Mandana, as pointed out in the Vartikaasra, in the first of these three inter pretationsSuresvara's attitude is one of half-hearted acquies cence in it. Nonewho remembers Madhusudanasarasvati's remarks on Suresvara's opposition'8" to Mandana's bhdeadvaita, can miss in the Vartika portion setting forth the first interpretation, these facts:--that Suresvara expressly repudiates's the bhod dbaita implication in it by adducing the argument that the nisedha also comes within the scope of deadita and, as such, comes within the scope of duaitadisodha, while Mandana emphasises 16s the bhouldoarita implication here and accepts it as a position quite consistent with the conception of additabrahmant; and that Suresvara considers it safein the interest of adorita in the strict senseto discard the first interpretation which comes dangerously near Mandana's position and, after criticising Man¢ana's position, proceeds to set forth, in the Vartika, the second and third interpretations. From the way in which Appayyadrasita refers to artikakara 18A and BrahmasiddBara, 165 may be made out that he knows that the authors of the Vartia and the Brachanasidth are two different personsHow everin the Siddhantal26asaigraha, the first half of a verse from the Brahmasiddhi is found to be misquotedge as an extract from the Vartia and AcyutakrsnanandatIratha also , in his commentary on the Siddhantalsassigraha, assumes that the Vartikakara, Suresvara, is the author of this verse. It would be a mistake to suppose from this erroneous reference that Appayya. drksita believed Mandana to be identical with Suresvara; for Appayyadrasita wrote a complete commentary on the Kalpataru and must have been quite a ware that Amalananda assumed'%7 that the Brahmasidd was written subsequent to Sarikara's Bhasya on the Brahashitras and that Mandana criticised sankara's views on certain questions ; and Drksita must also have been aware that Suresvara's exposition of advaita doctrine was based entirely on Sankara's works, while Mandana's exposition of advaita doctrine did not follow Sankara's works and constituted
a different prasthana, as pointed out by Sarvajiatmamuni, in his
e! See footnotes I००, Yot, Yo, supra
BrhadVar, Part IIP. Yo25, verses t96 to 799.
10 see botnote 95 .
sid. 16Sah Benares, r9t6, p. 48, line67, 8.
sid. I>. . Benares, 96p. 498
sid, les. Sah. Ben, 916, P. 473, lines 5, 6, 7
See footnote 2, supra
