xu
Mr. Suryanarayana Sastri had supervised the translation is sufficient guarantee for the value and accuracy of the translation. Perhaps he would have improved the present version if he had seen the proofs in the course of printing.
About Jayatirtha and his place in the Dvaita Vedanta and also in Indian philosophical literature, the translator has given a brief account in the introduction. His style is at the same time terse and lucid. His analysis of the various intricate points is very minute and at th~ same time it is very clear. The language is elegant and at the same time very forceful. For unassailable logic there are few works that can be a match to this work of Jayatirtha.
As for the doctrines, it is better that lesser people like me do not express an opinion where the great Acaryas differ. To understand the position take up by S'ankara regarding the illusory nature (mitthyatva) of the world that we experience, one has to look at the Buddhistic position. The Buddhists rely on dry logic and attempt to prove that everything positive is momentary and unreal and that s'Unya (void) is the only reality. S'ailkara •takes up their very logic to prove that our mind is incapable of cognising a negative aspect. This negation may be in point of space, in point of time or in point of the different things themselves. S'ankar~ shows {hat every such •negation, i.e., difference, is indeterminable (anirvacamya). Difference is an object of experience and as such it is not absolutely unreal and since it is,sublated on the realisation
