ajAti vAda

The traditional identification of maNDana miSra with sureSvara has been doubted in the
modern literature. Much can be said on both sides of this issue. It has been pointed out
that maNDana miSra and Sankara are most probably contemporaries, and that maNDana
must have known of Sankara's philosophical views when he wrote the brahmasiddhi.
Many themes are common to both maNDana and Sankara, e.g. that the reality of the
universe lasts only until liberation, which is nothing more or nothing less than realizing
the true nature (svarUpa) of the Atman; and that the jIva is really brahman, but appears
to be different by false knowledge and limiting adjuncts.
Perhaps this similarity is to be expected, because these are some of the cardinal
principles of advaita, and any advaitin of note would necessarily follow these lines.
There does seem to be some contrast between maNDana and Sankara on some other
issues. maNDana shows a tendency to accommodate what is known as
"jnAnakarmasamuccayavAda" - a combined path of jnAna and karma to achieve
liberation. On the other hand, Sankara is uncompromising in emphasizing jnAna and
denying that karma can directly lead to liberation, except for its role in cittaSuddhi, i.e.
as a means of purification. And sureSvara's independent work is titled
naishkarmyasiddhi - the achievement of the state of the absence of karma. maNDana
and sureSvara also differ on the question of the locus of avidyA. maNDana holds that
the avidyA rests on the jIva, and has brahman for its object. sureSvara maintains that
avidya both rests on brahman and has brahman for its object. This difference in view
about the nature and locus of avidyA is also seen in post-Sankaran advaita. vAcaspati
miSra takes the same view as maNDana does, and authors in the bhAmatI sub-school
expand their views along these lines. However, the vivaraNa writers mostly follow
sureSvara's line of reasoning, and hold that brahman is both the locus and object of
avidyA. Many contemporary scholars think that this difference of opinion is a late, post-
Sankaran development. In this connection, it is important to remember that maNDana
was a contemporary of Sankara, so that this difference of opinion indeed has an old
history.
Did maNDana miSra, the author of brahmasiddhi, write several treatises on pUrva
mImAm.sA earlier? If so, did maNDana, the pUrva mImAm.saka, change his
philosophical views later in his life to become maNDana, the vedAntin? Is maNDana,
the pUrva mImAm.saka, the same as maNDana, the vedAntin? Or are they different
people? Finally, is maNDana the same as sureSvara? Such questions will probably never
be answered to everybody's satisfaction. It is interesting to note in this connection that,
in the post-Sankaran advaita literature, the names sureSvara and viSvarUpa are used
interchangeably to refer to the vArttikakAra, while maNDana, the author of the
brahmasiddhi, is usually referred to only as the brahmasiddhikAra . However, many
traditional hagiographies, including the mAdhavIya Sankara-vijaya, identify the two.
SANKARACARYA'S DISCIPLES