A critical study of Ānandajñāna’s Tarkasaṅgraha
by Satyan Sharma | 2022 | 96,182 words
This page relates ‘Similarities with Citsukha's Tattvapradipika’ of the study on the Tarkasangraha by Anandajnana (also, Anandagiri), a Sanskrit text from the 12th century which, supporting Advaita Vedanta, refutes the Vaisheshika branch—both schools of orthodox Hindu philosophy. This essay advocates for detachment from logic, aligning with the Advaita Vedantic path to liberation.
Go directly to: Footnotes.
Part 2 - Similarities with Citsukha's Tattvapradīpikā
At many places, the texts of Citsukha's Tattvapradīpikā (Tattvapradīpikā) and that of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) bear many similarities. At other places, they look like variant readings of a single text. Some examples of the latter are:
| Tarkasaṅgraha | Tattvapradīpikā |
| na ceśvare sādhyāvyāptiḥ buddhijanyasaṃyogādiguṇāśrayaṇāt (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 4) |
na ceśvare sādhyāvyāptiḥ tasyāpi tvanmate tadbuddhijanyasaṃyogavibhāgānāśrayaṇāt (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 752) |
| kaśca mānavyavahāro hastivitastyādivyavahāro vā aṇumahadādivyavahāro vā asarvagatatvavyavahāro vā parimitatvavyavahāro vā (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 65) |
ko'yaṃ mānavyavahāraḥ kiṃ hastivitastyādivyavahāraḥ kiṃ vāṇumahadādivyavahārḥ vā asarvagatatvavyavahāro vā parimitatvavyavahāro vā (Tattvapradīpikā, pp. 773-774) |
| tanmātrācca jātisvīkāre dharmādharmayoḥ adṛṣṭaṃ adṛṣṭamityanugatapratyayabhājoḥ adṛṣṭatvajātyaṅgīkārāpātāt (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 20) | dharmādharmayoradṛṣatvajāterabhyupagamapras aṅgācca adṛṣṭamadṛṣṭamityubhayorapyanugatapratyayadṛṣ ṭeḥ (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 461) |
The following example is of yet another kind, where Citsukha's text seems to be a commentary on a similar portion of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) The excerpts are from the refutation of dravya in both the texts.
| Tarkasaṅgraha | Tattvapradīpikā |
| guṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvaṃ vivakṣitaṃ iti cet na tasminneva atyantābhāve ativyāpteḥ/ (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 19) | atha matam āstāmidamṛjupathaprasthitānāṃ dūṣaṇābhidhānam asmākaṃ punarabhinavavakranayavartmānusāriṇāṃ naiṣā vibhīṣā samunmiṣati yato guṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatāmeva guṇādhikaraṇatāmācakṣmahe tena nāvyāptirnātivyāptiḥ/ guṇādīnāṃ pañcānāmapi nirguṇatvaniṣkriyatve iti praśastapādabhāṣyadarśanāditi maivam tatraivātyantābhāve'tivyāpteḥ/ so'pi guṇavattvātyantābhāvastasyānadhikaraṇam svasya svasminnavṛtteḥ/ (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 454) |
| kiñca yatkiñcidguṇavattvaṃ sarvaguṇavattvaṃ vā atyantābhāvapratiyogi na ādyaḥ pratiyogibhūtasya ekaikasya guṇasya sarvatra asambhavena lakṣaṇasya ananugatatvāpātāt/ na dvitīyaḥ asaṃbhavitvāt/ (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 19) | kimekaikaguṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatva ṃ dravyalakṣaṇam uta sarvaguṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvam nobhayam ubhayatrāpyavyāpteḥ tathāhi rūpādīnāṃ guṇānām ekatvāt tadekaguṇādhikaraṇasyāpi taditaraguṇātyantābhāvādhikaraṇatvādeva tadatyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvābhāvāt/ sarvaguṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvasya sarvasminnasambhavāt/ sati hi sarvaguṇādhikaraṇatvamekaikasyāstīti kathaṃ nātivyāptiḥ/ (Tattvapradīpikā, pp. 454-455) |
Here it looks as if the argument which Ānandajñāna has put forward in a very brief manner, has been explained in detail by Citsukha. For example, Ānandajñāna ends the refutation of dravya lakṣaṇa based on the anadhikaraṇa of the atyantābhāva of guṇavattva, by simply saying that there would be ativyāpti in that very atyantābhāva, without giving any further statement of its justification or demonstration. Citsukha on the other hand explains it with 'svasya svasminnavṛtteḥ'. The certain atyantābhāva would also be regarded as a dravya because that atyantābhāva cannot be its own adhikaraṇa. The reason for this similarity in the said portions of the texts of Ānandajñāna and Citsukha is to be examined. The answer may be in the chronology of these two stalwarts of Advaita Vedānta.
General consensus about Ānandajñāna and Citsukha
Usually, Ānandajñāna is taken to be junior to Citsukha. S. Srikantha Sastri is of the view that Ānandajñāna is the disciple of Sukhaprakāśa, who is further the disciple of Citsukha.[1] Dr. V. A. Sharma is of the opinion that Ānandajñāna's Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is based on Tattvapradīpikā[2] R. Thangaswami reiterates Sastri's view that Ānandajñāna could be the disciple of Sukhaprakāśa.[3] It seems that it is this view that Ānandajñāna is the disciple of the latter, which has lead to the assumption that Ānandajñāna is junior to Citsukha, even though there is some consensus that both were present during the 13th century CE. E. P. Radhakrishnan has stated that Sukhaprakāśa is not the same as Śuddhānanda.[4] [1064] M. Ramakrishna Kavi is yet of another opinion. He says that Citsukha also studied under Śuddhānanda, the Guru of Ānandajñāna.[5] As there are many varied opinions regarding Citsukha and Ānandajñāna, it becomes necessary to revisit their texts to find any decisive evidence.
This similarity in Ānandajñāna's and Citsukha's texts of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Tattvapradīpikā respectively, is not the only such case. There is much more similarity in Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya and Citsukha's Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā, both being commentaries on the Brahmasūtra Śāṅkarabhāṣya. Following are the very few examples.1046
| Nyāyanirṇaya | Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśika |
| śāstrārambhahetuviṣayādisādhakamadhyāsamākṣ epa-samādhibhyāṃ saṃkṣipya tameva lakṣaṇasaṃbhāvanāpramāṇaiḥ sphuṭīkartuṃ codayati -āheti. (p. 14) |
śāstrārambhahetuviṣayādisādhakamadhyāsamākṣ epa-samādhibhyāṃ saṃkṣipya tameva lakṣaṇasaṃbhāvanāsadbhāvapramāṇaiḥ sphuṭīkartuṃ codayati -āheti. (p.14) |
| lakṣitarajatādhyāsasya lokavādisiddhatve'pi nā''tmanyanātmādhyāsaḥ syāditi viśeṣākṣepamutthāpayati -kathamiti. (p. 21) |
lakṣitarajatādhyāsasya lokavādisiddhatve'pi nātmanyanātmādhyāsaḥ syāditi viśeṣākṣepamutthāpayati -kathamiti. (p. 21) |
| asyārthaḥ -adhyāsetaro dehātmayogo dehasyātmasaṃyogo vā''tmecchayā'nuvidhīyamānatvaṃ vā tadanuvidhānayogyatvaṃ vā tatkarmārabhyatvaṃ vā/ (p. 28) |
asyārthaḥ -adhyāsetaro dehātmayogaḥ dehasyātmecchayā'nuvidhīyamānatvaṃ vā tadanuvidhānayogyatvaṃ vā tatkarmārabhyatvaṃ vā/ (p. 28) |
In the introductory verses of Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā, Citsukha says that he has collected the statements of the knowers of the tradition in this commentary of his.[6] On the other hand, Ānandajñāna does not state any such thing either in the beginning or at the end of his Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya. At the end of Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya, he says that although there are many other vyākhyānas on the text, yet he has written this vyākhyā for easy understanding.[7] It implies that he viewed his commentary as different from those of the other authors. As for the overview given by Dr. Maṇidrāviḍa Śāstrī, where he attempts to establish that Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya follows Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā, his observations, if seen from another perspective, could as well establish that Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā follows Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya, keeping in view that Citsukha has himself admitted to have collected the statements of other scholars.[8]
At other places, Ānandajñāna does state his inspiration. At the end of his Gītābhāṣyaṭīkā on Śāṅkarabhāṣya of Bhagavadgītā, he tells that he has followed the path of the old Ācāryas.[9] In the beginning of his Nyāyanirṇaya on Bṛhadāraṇyakaśāṅkarabhāṣya, he says that he has written it having followed the statements of Sureśvara.[10] The similarity between Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya and Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā is in one way interpreted as Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya being based on Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā. But keeping in mind what Citsukha says in the introductory verses of his Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā, there may be a possibility that Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā is based on Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya.
Textual evidences from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), Tattvapradīpikā and other texts
In his Tattvapradīpikā, while refuting vyāpti, Citsukha mentions the various options of the substratum or substrata of vyāpti in the form of avinābhāva. After mentioning them in a verse, he then refutes them in the next verse. At first his refutation looks fine, but when observed closely, an incongruity in one of his refutations can be noticed.
Following is the verse in which he provides the said options;
"kiṃ vyaktyorathavā jātyostadvatorvā viśeṣayoḥ/
vyāptistvayeṣyate kiṃ vā sādhyasādhanavattvayoḥ//"[11]
In the above verse, one of the options is that the vyāpti resides in two vyaktis, that is, in an individual dhūma and an individual vahni.
In the following verse he refutes the said options;
"sā na vyaktyostadānantyānna jātyostadasaṃbhavāt/
na tadvatoruktadoṣānna caturtho'nirūpaṇāt//"[12]
He refutes the first option, which is that vyāpti resides in two vyaktis, by saying that vyaktis are infinite. The refutation does not fit with the option, because the option to be refuted was two vyaktis and not simply vyaktis. This incongruence becomes clearer when the prose portion next to the verse, is observed.
In the prose portion, Citsukha says:
"nādyaḥ vyaktīnāmanantatvāttatra saṃbandhagrahaṇāsaṃbhavāt/
na hyasarvajñena sarvā vyaktayo viśeṣato jñāyante/"[13]
The first sentence in the above excerpt uses 'vyaktīnām' instead of 'vyaktyoḥ', whereas the second sentence uses the same context to say that someone who is not omniscient cannot know all the vyaktis specifically (not just two vyaktis).
Following is an excerpt of the refutation of vyāpti from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)):
"na kvācitkaḥ sambandho vyāptiḥ sārvatrikasya tathātvena vivakṣitatvāt iti cetkimidaṃ sārvatrikatvaṃ sambandhasya sarvāsu tajjātīyavyaktiṣu vidyamānateti cenneyaṃ sarvatajjātīyavyaktya'parijñāne śakyāvadhāraṇā na ca sarvāstā vyaktayo viśeṣato jñātuṃ śakyāḥ"[14]
The last sentence of the above excerpt from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) matches strikingly with the one from Tattvapradīpikā mentioned previously:
"na hyasarvajñena sarvā vyaktayo viśeṣato jñāyante"—Tattvapradīpikā
"na ca sarvāstā vyaktayo viśeṣato jñātuṃ śakyāḥ"—Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)
Such a statement in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) is congruent because there the context is the omnipresence of vyāpti in all vyaktis and not just two vyaktis. A question then arises that if Citsukha has referred to Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) for this, why did he not refute it by saying 'na vyaktīnāmanantatvāt' instead of 'sā na vyaktyostadānantyāt' in the verse?
The answer lies in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), where while refuting the various options of the substratum or substrata of avinābhāva, Ānandajñāna takes up the option of two vyaktis. His version of the refutation is as follows:
"sa ca jātyoḥ vyaktyoḥ upādhyoḥ tadvatoḥ vā na nirūpyate/
... nāpi dhūmāgnivyaktyoḥ asau sidhyati anugamābhāvāt/"[15]
Here the refutation of 'vyaktyoḥ' is congruent because Ānandajñāna states the lack of anugama between all couples of vyaktis, even though there is some connection between two vyaktis. It is to be noticed that both Citsukha and Ānandajñāna use dual declensions for the options (jātyoḥ, upādhyoḥ, vyaktyoḥ). In the one of the other options (jātyoḥ), Citsukha sticks to the dual declension in its refutation.[16]
The answer to the question of why Citsukha, if he has referred to Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) for this refutation, refuted the option of two vyaktis by mentioning infinite vyaktis, is that he referred to both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) for this refutation. He took the options from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) but took the refutations from Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) Because Śrīharṣa in his Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) does not refute the option of two vyaktis and refutes by mentioning the impossibility of perceiving all vyaktis, Citsukha also picked up the refutation based on infinite or all vyaktis.
This piece of evidence at least suggests that Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is prior to Tattvapradīpikā, and that Citsukha referred to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) while authoring his Tattvapradīpikā, but while authoring the aforementioned portion, he may have missed bridging the gap between one of the options and its refutation.
Śeṣaśārṅgadhara in his Nyāyamañjarī (Jayantabhaṭṭa) has cited both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Tattvapradīpikā At one place he cites the Tarkasaṅgrahakāra's anumānaprayoga, which has been stated by Ānandajñāna to assert that pṛthivī dravya is anitya in its entirety.[17] This anumānaprayoga has also been mentioned by Citsukha in his Tattvapradīpikā But interestingly, Śeṣa Śārṅgadhara identifies Ānandajñāna with it, instead of Citsukha. It seems that he knew that this anumānaprayoga was originally the idea mentioned in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and not Tattvapradīpikā
Elsewhere, Śeṣa Śārṅgadhara cites Tattvapradīpikā, and the way he mentions it, makes an implication that a certain refutation in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), had probably received a rebuttal after its authorship, and when Tattvapradīpikā was authored, the rebuttal was mentioned and a counter was provided.[18] As shown earlier, during the refutation of dravya, Ānandajñāna also refutes the 'guṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatva', but he leaves the demonstration of the various atyantābhāvas after showing that even if the Vaiśeṣika accepts multiple atyantābhāvas, there would still be ativyāpti in anadhikaraṇatva of all the atyantābhāvas whose pratiyogin is guṇavattva.[19] After showing ativyāpti in the said atyantābhāva, Ānandajñāna shows ananugama in the two options of the pratiyogin.[20] Instead of ananugama, Citsukha shows avyāpti, which is specifically connected with the freshly produced dravya (pūrvābhihitāvyāpti). Ananugama is the lack of genericity or the lack of the knowledge of a common factor in multiple entities, whereas avyāpti is the lack of pervasion in a portion of the lakṣya, which is based on the actual presence and absence of something in something else. There can be a case where although X exists in Y, and hence the lakṣaṇa 'Y is that which possesses X' is correct and does not incur the fault of avyāpti, but because X is of many types, for example, X1, X2, upto Xn, the knowledge of any one of the types in all dravyas may not happen, leading to the fault of ananugama. Similarly, the knowledge of the presence of gandha in all dravyas cannot happen as per the Vaiśeṣikas, because gandha only exists in pṛthivī. Hence although all dravyas have some or other guṇa or guṇasāmānya, but all dravyas do not have the guṇaviśeṣa called gandha. Hence the lakṣaṇa which puts gandha as the guṇa being possessed, would not be cognised in all dravyas.
Having shown the said ativyāpti in all atyantābhāvas, Ānandajñāna leaves aside the issue of the freshly born dravya and takes up dravyas which have crossed the first moment after being born. Hence, there can be something which is present in all the dravyas after the first moment, and that it can be used to remove the issue of ananugama. This is why, Ānandajñāna shows his opponent as replying with the idea that the pratiyogin is saṅkhyāvattva.[21] The reason is that saṅkhyā is present in all the dravyas after they have crossed the first kṣaṇa of their creation. Citsukha on the other hand, takes the issue back to the freshly produced dravya, and shows avyāpti of 'not being the substratum of any one of the 24 guṇas'.[22] Citsukha seems to have expanded and demonstrated Ānandajñāna's argument of ativyāpti in atyantābhāva, and then with the intention of upgrading the refutation from a basic fault of ananugama to a major fault of avyāpti, Citsukha joined this end of the argument with the very first argument of his and Ānandajñāna.
But Citsukha does seem to have felt the incompleteness of his argument, because after this, he comes back to the issue of the knowledge of saṅkhyā and pṛthaktva in guṇas.[23] [1084] Then after considering the issue of anavasthā being advanced by the opponent, Citsukha considers the opponent's idea that the knowledge of the saṅkhyā and pṛthaktva residing in dravya, happens in guṇa via the ekārthasamavāya pratyāsatti.[24] He replies to this by saying that the very opposite can be said, that is, the saṅkhyā and pṛthaktva in guṇa, appears in dravya via the said pratyāsatti.[25] Then again after some more discussion on the difference of saṅkhyā in the number of guṇas and dravyas, Citsukha arrives at the counterargument that if saṅkhyā and pṛthaktva of dravya can appear in guṇa and karman, so can the sattā, sāmānya and so forth appear in the guṇa.[26] This is similar to Ānandajñāna's counter against the assertion of ekārthasamavāya and secondary knowledge of saṅkhyā in guṇa and so forth, but it is closer to Śrīharṣa's closing statements of his dravya refutation in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)[27] In Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), such a counterargument follows a rather smooth sequence, whereas in Tattvapradīpikā, it comes after many unnecessary counterarguments in between. For example, there was no need to present the counterargument of the saṅkhyā of guṇas appearing in dravyas, because ultimately, the argument ends with the aforesaid counterargument about sattā sāmānya, just like it ends in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) The issue of Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)'s similar aforesaid argument shall be discussed in 5.3.
Upto this point, it seems that both the Tattvapradīpikā and Śeṣa Śārṅgadhara's citation in Nyāyamañjarī (Jayantabhaṭṭa) show that Citsukha's refutation of the said lakṣaṇa came after Ānandajñāna's refutation, and the former added a further layer to the refutation based on that of Ānandajñāna, while also explaining Ānandajñāna's argument with demonstrations. It so happens that when an author is referring to multiple texts for composing their own text, many a time there is a break in the smooth flow. For example, the issue of anavasthā taken up by Citsukha from the pūrvapakṣa, is present in Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa)[28] The way in which both Śrīharṣa and Citsukha handle this, shows how Citsukha has tried to add his own creative input to this after referring to Śrīharṣa's dravya refutation. This also shows why there are breaks in the continuity and congruity of argumentation in Tattvapradīpikā, which becomes all the more clear when Citsukha ends the dravya refutation in a similar manner as that of Śrīharṣa, which is, by saying that sattā sāmānya of guṇa can be sourced from dravya. It is beyond reasonable to think that someone of the stature and learning as of Citsukha would think in this manner, where he first begins an argument, then deviates, then returns, then deviates and finally returns back to conclude the argument. It is hence possible, that while composing this portion of his text, he was looking at both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa), and just as he added his own inputs to the already existing argument of the latter, he did the same with that of the former.
Near the end of his Tattvapradīpikā, Citsukha mentions and quotes someone whom he calls 'ārādhyapāda', whom Pratyaksvarūpa mentions as Citsukha's Guru in his Nayanaprasādinī commentary.[29] The statement quoted is in a text titled 'Nyāyasudhā', which presents the idea that although avidyā is one, there are differences in its ākāra.[30] This idea is strikingly similar to the one stated by Ānandajñāna at the end of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)[31] A mention of differences in the avasthā of avidyā is found in the Pañcapādikāvivaraṇa.[32] Citsukha may have mentioned his Guru's statement because it may have been he who used the specific term 'ākāra' instead of 'avasthā'.
Ānandajñāna briefly arrives at his idea of ākārabheda by citing the statement of attributed to Vimuktātman alias Iṣṭasiddhikāra, and says:
"yāvanti jñānāni tāvanti ajñānāni iti asya ca ātmājñāsya ekasyaiva ākārabhedābhiprāyatvāt na ajñānabhedaviṣayakatvam"[33]
Here Ānandajñāna cites the statement 'yāvanti jñānāni tāvanti ajñānāni' and expresses that the abhiprāya or intended meaning of this statement is that even though there is one single ajñāna of ātman, there are differences of its ākāras. He presents his interpretation in contrast with the other, which is 'ajñānabhedaviṣayakatvam'. When Citsukha mentions the ākārabheda idea, he does not own it, but gives due credit to his Guru for coming up with it. Ānandajñāna, in his commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārttika similarly cites the same statement and says that the ākārabheda of ajñāna is accepted.[34] In his commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣya of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, Ānandajñāna uses the word 'ākāra' to describe a certain state of avidyā.[35] [1097] In the same text, Ānandajñāna, while he follows Ādi Śaṅkarācārya in the interpretation of the phrase "indro māyābhiḥ pururūpa īyate", calls the use of bahuvacana for Māyā or Ajñāna being based on 'prakārabheda'.[36] In Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), he has used the expression 'prakārabheda' in the same sense as of 'ākārabheda'.[37]
After Citsukha himself concludes his idea of one single Jīva and one single avidyā, he assumes the character of someone who believes in multiple Jīvas and multiple avidyās.[38] Citsukha, while he pretends to reject the idea that there is only one single avidyā, cites the same statement attributed to Vimuktātman, to say that one single Jīva has been accepted to possess multiple avidyas.[39] The Nayanaprasādinī commentary on this passage clarifies that this idea of one single Jīva and one single avidyā, is what Citsukha's own siddhānta is.[40] Then before Citsukha begins with his discussion on the idea of multiple avidyās and multiple Jīvas, the same commentary clarifies the context of the ensuing discussion. It says that for those whose intellects are pure, Citsukha has presented the idea of one single Jīva (and one single avidyā), but for those whose minds are caught in duality, for them Citsukha shall discuss the idea of multiple Jīvas (and multiple avidyās) by the way of finding faults with it and then providing solutions.[41]
During this discussion by Citsukha, where he assumes the character of someone who supports the idea of multiple Jīvas and multiple avidyās, one can easily find some statements which are of the pūrvapakṣa in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), but in Tattvapradīpikā, Citsukha supports them.[42] Before this discussion, one can find statements in Tattvapradīpikā, which resemble those of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) almost exactly.[43] It is further worth noting that just around the portion where Ānandajñāna begins to state his idea of ākārabheda of ajñāna, Citsukha picks up all of the Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)'s pūrvapakṣa statements and supports them, while he assumes the character of someone who supports the idea of multiple Jīvas and multiple avidyas. It is only when Citsukha concludes this portion of his text, that he finally arrives at the idea of avidyāleśa, and to support that he cites his Guru's idea of ākārabheda in a single avidyā.
In the Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), the idea of ākārabheda in ajñāna is presented without much discussion, and it comes at a point where it should. Unlike in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), in Tattvapradīpikā, the idea of ākārabheda takes a long time to appear. In this portion of the Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), the pūrvapakṣa statements and rejoinders along with their refutations by Ānandajñāna follow a clear sequence. After concluding his idea that there is one ātman, and one avidyā, Ānandajñāna proceeds further to cite statements from the śāstra to prove that there is only one avidyā, which has different ākāras which could explain the complexity at the vyavahāra level of existence. After he states this, the next logical question is that whether one single ajñāna is responsible for both jāgrat and svapna, to which he responds by reiterating that there is only one ajñāna for both, but there is ākārabheda. At this point the main portion of his discussion ends.
Unlike this, in the corresponding portion of Tattvapradīpikā, the sequence seems to break many a time. For example, once Citsukha assumes the aforesaid character, and makes the corresponding pūrvapakṣa of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), which asks whether there is only one or multiple ajñānas for both jāgrat and svapna, as his own pakṣa, even after presenting himself to be of the opinion that there are multiple avidyās, what he considers as a pūrvapakṣa's rejoinder, should not have been stated. The pūrvapakṣa rejoinder is this; "for the sake of establishing the intermediate differences (avāntarabhedas), avidyābheda should be conceptualised."[44] The rejoinder ends with 'iti cet', and even though he is showing as his pūrvapakṣa those who believe in one single avidyā, his so-called pūrvapakṣa challenges him by asking him to accept avidyābheda which he has already stated to have accepted in his assumed character.[45] If his opponent is actually an ekāvidyāvādin, and Citsukha has accepted anekāvidyāvāda, and also has stated that there are infinite avidyās related to infinite Jīvas, why would his opponent challenge him to accept anekāvidyāvāda or avidyābheda?
This makes it amply clear that for some reason, even after he assumes the position of an anekāvidyāvādin, Citsukha presents his opponent to be professing anekāvidyāvāda, which implies that knowingly or unknowingly Citsukha presents himself as a proponent of ekāvidyāvāda. This is evident from his reply to the aforesaid challenge, where he says that it won't be a fault in his position to conceptualise multiple avidyās.[46] A closer look at his reply reveals something more. In his reply, Citsukha says that for infinite Jīvas he can conceptualise multiple avidyās.[1109] This same reply as it is presented in the form of a pūrvapakṣa statement in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), is about accepting infinite avidyās for infinite Jīvas.[47] This version in the Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is most likely the original version, because the main issue being raised is not that there should be multiple avidyās, but that there should be infinite avidyās. This becomes clear from the verse which precedes Citsukha's reply in prose. The verse says that just like the multiplicity of avidyās has been accepted on the basis of jāgrat and svapna, in the same manner infinite avidyās could be conceptualised.[48] In the prose portion of the reply, Citsukha does not say that infinite avidyās could be conceptualised, but instead says that multiple avidyās could be conceptualised. The issue, as per the version in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), was not of multiple avidyās, but of infinite avidyās. But as is seen in Tattvapradīpikā, Citsukha's pūrvapakṣa's statement only asks him to accept multiple avidyās.[49] Then suddenly, in the metrical reply by Citsukha, the issue becomes that of infinite avidyās, and in the prose portion of Citsukha's reply, the issue becomes that of multiple avidyās. This shows that Citsukha took these portions from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), and that knowingly or unknowingly, he forgot the position which he had assumed for a lengthy discussion. Following is a demonstration of the above statements together for a better comparison.
| Pūrvapakṣa in Tattvapradīpikā | kalpitatvāviśeṣe'pi kiṃcidvyāvahārikaṃ yaddehādyātmabhāvādinivartakātmasākṣātkāraparyantamanuvartate kiṃcitprātibhāsikaṃ yatpramātṛtvādivyavahāre satyeva nivartata ityavāntarabhedasiddhaye avidyābhedaḥ kalpanīya iti cet (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 939) |
| Citsukha's reply in verse | avidyā kalpyate'nekā jāgratsvapnavibheditā/ yathā tathaiva kalpyantāmanantāḥ sati kalpake// (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 939) |
| Citsukha's reply in prose | mamāpi muktāmuktādirūpeṇa vyavahārikānantajīvānāṃ śukavāmadevaparāśaraprabhṛtīnāṃ pratibhāsanāttadupapattaye tattaddhetubhūtānekāvidyābhyupagame'pi na doṣaḥ (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 939) |
| Pūrvapakṣa in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) | yathā hi jāgratsvapnavibhedakaṃ nānā ajñānaṃ abhyupagataṃ tathaiva muktāmuktādirūpeṇa vyāvahārikānantajīvānāṃ śukavāmadevapāmaraprabhṛtīnāṃ pratibhānāt tadupapattaye tattaddhetubhūtānantājñānābhyupagame'pi na kiñcit dūṣaṇaṃ iti cet (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 139) |
As has been mentioned, Citsukha quotes his Guru's statement from the latter's text called Nyāyasudhā. Appayya Dīkṣita in his Siddhāntaleśasaṃgraha quotes 'Nyāyasudhākṛt' or the author of Nyāyasudhā. Nyāyasudhākṛt states that the knowledge of 'san ghaṭaḥ' (pot is existent) happens as a matter of pratyakṣa, in which the sattā (existence) appears in the pot through the relation of the latter with its substratum where the sattā resides, and if someone says that the blue colour of the pot also should exist in the said substratum, it is refuted by saying that the substratum (Brahman in this case) is colourless and that colour can be imagined as residing in the pot, whereas if sattā too would reside in the pot, it would lead to kalpanāgaurava.[50]
Similar to this, Ānandajñāna is of the opinion that the knowledges of 'ghaṭaḥ san', 'paṭaḥ san' and so forth, are pratyakṣa, and happen on the basis of the sāmānya, which resides everywhere, and is known through presence of vyavahāra of 'sat sat' (existent existent).[51] Along with this, he is also of the opinion that 'sanmātra' alone exists, which is the basis of the appearance of the multitude of existence.[52] Appayya Dīkṣita has contrasted the view of Nyāyasudhākṛt with that of Tattvaśuddhikṛt and others, where the latter are of the opinion that the knowledge of 'san ghaṭaḥ' is not pratyakṣa.[53] Hence it seems that Appayya Dīkṣita thought that the quoted view of Nyāyasudhākṛt was probably an original contribution of the latter. As has been shown, the said views of Nyāyasudhākṛt and that of Ānandajñāna are very much similar to each other. Keeping in mind the similarity of the ideas of ākārabheda of mūlājñāna, the similarity of the ideas just shown, strongly suggests that the author of Nyāyasudhā is none other than Ānandajñāna, whom even Citsukha has quoted on the basis of the said text.
It is also to be noted that Tattvapradīpikā is not a text purely dedicated to the refutation of Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika darśanas. The reason is that out of its four paricchedas, only one pariccheda, which is the second pariccheda, contains the said refutations, whereas the other paricchedas are more or less dedicated to the discussion, investigation and criticism of Vedānta. This is why Citsukha has titled his text as 'pratyaktattvapradīpikā', although it contains the 'chatter' dedicated to refuting the divergent opinions or disagreements.[54] On the contrary, Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is mainly dedicated to the refutation of the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika darśanas, because in all of its three paricchedas, it contains the said refutations. It is only in a portion of the first and the third paricchedas that Ānandajñāna discusses, investigates and refutes some ideas which are mainly concerned with Vedānta. This is why Ānandajñāna has titled his text as 'tarkasaṅgraha' because it is mainly dedicated to the refutation of the said darśanas. The textual evidences presented can be explained by stating that Citsukha referred to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) for authoring Tattvapradīpikā The idea that Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is based on Tattvapradīpikā, would not be able to explain the evidences presented. Hence, in the view of the evidences presented, it is highly likely that the Guru of Citsukha, whose view on ākārabheda of a single avidyā has been mentioned in Tattvapradīpikā, is none other than Ānandajñāna. Consequently, there could be two other texts authored by Ānandajñāna, namely Nyāyasudhā (mentioned by Citsukha) and Jñānasiddhi (mentioned by Pratyaksvarūpa).
Finding the name of Citsukha's Guru in Citsukha's own writings
One may ask that if Cisukha has picked up so many passages from Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), why does not he mention Ānandajñāna? In both the introductory verses of Tattvapradīpikā and Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā, he has mentioned someone, who is taken to be possessing the name 'Jñānottama', whom he bows down to.[55] This name is taken to be that of his Guru. He is also differentiated from the Jñānottama Miśra who belonged to or resided in the Cola country, and has written a commentary on Naiṣkarmyasiddhi.[56] Jñānottama mentioned by Citsukha, is mentioned in some of his colophons as 'Gauḍeśvara', which may indicate his relation to or residence of Gauḍa.[57]
There has been a practice of mentioning the name of one's own Guru indirectly by using a synonym of the complete name or a part of it. Sureśvara mentions his Guru Ādi Śaṅkarācārya as Bhavanāmabhṛt (having the name of Bhava or Śiva i.e., Śaṅkara) in his Taittirīyabhāṣyavārttika.[58] At the end of his Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārttika, Sureśvara calls him 'the one who has the name Vedhas'.[59] Ānandajñāna's own śiṣya or his śiṣya's śiṣya Akhaṇḍānanda mentions him as Ānandaśaila and Bodhapṛthvīdhara in the beginning of his Tattvadīpana commentary on Pañcapādikāvivaraṇa.[60] Amṛtānanda in his commentary on Nyāyadīpāvalī called Nyāyaviveka, calls him Ānandaśaila.[61] [1125] The name
'Ānandaśaila' is related to 'Ānandagiri', whereas 'Bodhapṛthvīdhara' is related to 'Jñānagiri'. The word 'giri' also means 'pūjya' (respectable or venerable).[62] Similar meaning is held by the word 'uttama', which also means 'utkṛṣṭa' (praised or respectable).[63] In this way, the words 'Jñānagiri' and 'Jñānottama' seem to be synonymous. It is to be noted that Citsukha also mentions 'dakṣiṇāmūrti' in his said introductory verse, while drawing unity between him, Vyāsa, Śaṅkara, and so forth. This becomes all the more an important point because Dakṣiṇāmūrti is Śiva, whereas the one to whom Citsukha specifically pays due obeisance is Nṛsiṃha, an avatāra of Viṣṇu. Amṛtānanda, in his aforesaid text, calls Ānandajñāna the 'apara dakṣiṇāmūrti' (the second dakṣiṇāmūrti).[64] Again, Amṛtānanda himself begins with paying obeisance to Viṣṇu, but when he mentions Ānandajñāna, he mentions Dakṣiṇāmūrti. In his Tattvadīpana, Akhaṇḍānanda praises and pays obeisance to Ānandajñāna just after praising Śiva. So it seems that the case of Citsukha equating Vyāsa, Ādi Śaṅkarācārya and his Guru with Dakṣiṇāmūrti, is not merely a coincidence but something based on some kind of a tradition.
Another word which Citsukha mentions along with Jñānottama is 'Satyānanda'. It seems that he uses 'satyānandapadodita' as an adjective for Jñānottama. Here, the word can be divided mainly into three parts, which are satyānanda-pada-udita. The first two parts could be a bahuvrīhi samāsa, which could mean 'satyānanda is the pada (word) of whom' (satyānanda iti padaṃ yasya). The term pada is grammatically defined as that which has a vibhakti (suptiṅantaṃ padam). The word 'udita' also means 'udayaṃ prāpta' (risen).[65] As an adjective for Jñānottama, it tells us about some 'Satyānanda', by whom was Jñānottama risen (by receiving knowledge?). This name Satyānanda could as well be a synonym of Śuddhānanda, as both the words 'satya' and 'śuddha' are synonymous from the point of view of Brahman as well, for whom these are used in Advaita Vedānta. In this way, it seems that Citsukha is telling that his Guru is some Jñānagiri (alias Ānandajñāna), whose Guru is Śuddhānanda.
Another way of analysing it is this; the word 'jñānottamākhya' could also mean 'the one whose uttamākhyā is jñāna', where 'uttamākhyā' would mean the last or the last part of the name (ākhyā). The word 'uttama' also means 'antya' (last).[66] This would mean that the name of the person would end with the word 'jñāna'. The word 'udita' in 'satyānandapadodita' also means 'kathita' (spoken).[67] Both the words 'satyānandapadodita' and 'jñānottamākhya' would represent one single person, where the former would mean 'the one who is spoken of by the word satyānanda', and the latter would have the aforesaid meaning. This would mean that the word 'satyānanda' is primary or first, while 'jñāna' is the last part of the name. In this way, the name would be 'satyānandajñāna', which is close to the name 'ānandajñāna'. The 'satya' in 'satyānanda' may also be regarded as a kind of an extra part attached for the purpose of meter or praise. Amalānanda mentions his Guru's name in a similar manner, which if taken literally, his Guru's name would be 'yathārthānubhavānanda', but it is actually simply Anubhavānanda.[68] Amalānanda also uses a compound word similar to 'padodita', that is 'padagīta'.
Next is the question about the way in which the title 'Gauḍeśvara' should be interpreted. In some manuscripts of Tattvapradīpikā, the colophons mention only Citsukha, and not Jñānottama.[69] In the Puṇyaślokamañjarī of Sarvajñasadāśivabodhendrasarasvatī, Sureśvara is called Gauḍa, which represents his kind of Brāhmaṇas.[70] He may have been called also as Gauḍeśvara, because of having become prominent amongst the Gauḍa Brāhmaṇas. At the end of his Śāstraprakāśikā commentary on Sureśvara's Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārttika, Ānandajñāna says that he had earned the padavī of Viśvānubhava,[71] who is taken to be Sureśvara.[72] M. Ramakrishna Kavi has shown that Sureśvara's pre-saṃnyāsa name was 'Viśvarūpa'.[73] It may be the case that in the said verse, the padavī or rank which Ānandajñāna has talked about, is the rank of 'Gauḍeśvara'. This could be another explanation of the title 'Gauḍeśvarācārya' held by Citsukha's guru Jñānottama. It may also be the case that such colophons have been added much later than the original manuscripts. The later scribes may have referred to the said introductory verses, or may have been acquainted to a popular identification based on them.
Another point worth noticing is the way in which the names Ānandajñāna, Citsukha and Sukhaprakāśa (Citsukha's disciple) align with each other. The word 'cit' also means 'jñāna' and 'sukha' also means 'ānanda'.[74] Similarly, 'prakāśa' also means 'jñāna'.[75] In this way, the word 'citsukha' is synonymous with 'jñānānanda' (reverse order of 'ānandajñāna'). The word 'sukhaprakāśa' is synonymous with 'sukhacit' (reverse order of 'citsukha') and 'ānandajñāna'. Similarly, as per Puṇyaślokamañjarī, Śūddhānanda's Guru was Jñānānanda, and the former's śiṣya's name was kept Ānandajñāna. It may be the case that this is not a mere coincidence.
It is to be noted that in the introductory verses composed by Ānandajñāna in his commentaries on Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's bhāṣyas on Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad and Chāndogyopaniṣat, it is shown that his Guru Śuddhānanda was an expert in refuting the opponents' thesis.[76] Akhaṇḍānanda in his Tattvadīpana shows Ānandajñāna to be an expert debater.[77]
Historical and traditional information regarding Ānandajñāna and Citsukha
Keeping in view the previous discussion and evidences presented, it may be the case that Citsukha's Guru is Ānandajñāna. Citsukha's time period is said to be the thirteenth century CE (1220/1284).[78] As has been stated in chapter 1, Ānandajñāna has mentioned his time period being the same century. This at least establishes that both of them were contemporaries. In the various traditional lists of Ācāryas of the Kāñcī Kāmakoṭī maṭha, some Ānandajñāna is mentioned right after Śuddhānanda, both as the disciple of the latter, and as the head of the Kāñcī maṭha.[79] S. V. Venkateswara published a 15th century CE grant mentioned in three copper-plates, which were given to the maṭha at Conjeeveram (Kanchipuram).[80] The authenticity of the traditional lists is suggested by the fact that the donees of that grant are mentioned in them (from 49th to 52nd). In the same paper, S. V. Venkateswara suggests that the approximate time of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya (the first name in the list) can be calculated to be 9th century CE. He says that on an average, the difference between each head Ācārya is 13.6 years. But this method gives us 9th century CE for the Ānandajñāna mentioned in the list. This method also disregards the time-limits mentioned in the texts like Puṇyaślokamañjarī.
Elsewhere, in another research paper, S. V. Venkateswara has given a specific date to Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, which is, from 805 CE to 897 CE.[81] He has also mentioned that as per the tradition, Sarvajñātman and Ādi Śaṅkarācārya were almost of the same age.[82] The Puṇyaślokamañjarī mentions Sarvajñātman after Sureśvara, and tells that the former entered the saṃnyāsa āśrama before the age of 7 years.[83] The total period of time he spent at the maṭha, some of which was along with Sureśvara, is said to be 112 years.[84] It seems that the verse suggests that he spent 70 years with Sureśvara, and 42 years himself at the maṭha.
If we take Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's date to be 805 CE, along with the suggestion of him being of almost the same age as Sarvajña, we can still keep Sarvajña's date as 815 CE, to be on a safer side. As he entered saṃnyāsa before the age of 7, counting from his 7th year, he may have begun staying at the maṭha during 822 CE. If he spent 112 years at the maṭha before his demise, his last year would be 934 CE. Then the seat was transferred to Satyabodha, who is said to have lived in the maṭha upto 96 years, before his demise.[85] So his last year would be 1030 CE. Then Jñānānanda is said to have taken over the seat and to have lived in the maṭha upto 63 years before his demise.[86] His last year would be 1093 CE. His disciple Śuddhānanda became his heir and is said to have lived at the maṭha upto 81 years, before demise.[87] His last year would be 1174 CE. Ānandajñāna, his disciple became his successor and is said to have spent a total of 69 years at the maṭha before demise.[88] Hence, his last year would be 1243 CE.
In this manner, the Ānandajñāna mentioned in the list seems to have lived from the 12th to 13th centuries CE. It does seem likely that he is the same as the author of Tarkasaṅgraha, because he is mentioned as the disciple of Śuddhānanda and has been mentioned as the author of bhāṣyas on the bhāṣyas of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya.[89] Also, his last year has been deduced to be 1243 CE or simply near the latter half of the 13th century CE, which matches with the indication of his time given by him in his Tarkaviveka.[90] The said period, which is 1174 CE to 1243 CE is only the time of his ascendance to the seat of his guru. It follows that his Tattvāloka, which he wrote during his pre-saṃnyāsa life as Janārdana, must have been written much before, which could be the middle of the 12th century CE. In this manner, he becomes a contemporary of Śrīharṣa, who is said to have lived around 1170 CE.[91]
The Citsukha mentioned in the same traditional list does not seem to be the same as the author of Tattvapradīpikā, as his guru is said to be Saccitsukha, and further Saccitsukha's guru is said to be Pūrṇabodha. No work of Citsukha has been mentioned in Puṇyaślokamañjarī of Sarvajñasadāśivabodhendrasarasvatī, Gururājaratnamālāstavavyākhyā of Ātmabodhendra Sarasvatī on Gururājaratnamālāstava of Sadāśivabrahmendra or in the Jagadguruparamparāstava of Sudarśanamahādevendrasarasvatī. Also, as per two inscriptions found in the Vizagapatam, Andhra Pradesh, some Citsukha was managing the temple at Siṃhācalam, situated in the Vizianagaram estate.[92] The two inscriptions are dated 1220 CE and 1284 CE.
Ānandajñāna has been said to reside in the Kāñcī maṭha of Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu. He is also said to have stayed at a place called Śrīśaila during his last days.[93] A place of the same name is today located in Andhra Pradesh. It could be the case that Citsukha came in contact with Ānandajñāna during the latter's stay in the said place. The inscriptions give another name of Citsukha, which is Nṛsiṃhamahāmuni. In the inscription dated 1284 CE, he is also called Citsukhasomayājin, which suggests that he had performed the prestigious somayāga. This further suggests that he may have led a householder's life before entering saṃnyāsa. As per the Maṭhāmnāyasetu attributed to Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, to be eligible for the position of Śaṅkarācārya, one of the necessary conditions is that the candidate should have entered saṃnyāsa directly after brahmacarya.[94]
Hence, it may be the reason why Citsukha has not been the head of the Kāñcī maṭha and that the Saccitsukha, Citsukha and Citsukhendra mentioned in the said list, are not identical with the author of Tattvapradīpikā Staying at the Siṃhācalam temple, he may have come in contact with Ānandajñāna, who by that time may have come to be known as having written sub-commentaries on all of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's commentaries, and commentaries on many of the latter's works, and may have been considered as an authority on the Śāṅkara Vedānta. It may have been due to this reknowledge, that he was invited to Kaliṅga by the king Nṛsiṃhadeva, where he may have composed his Tarkaviveka. Then, having returned back to the south, he may have spent the last part of his life at Śrīśaila.
Ānandajñāna's pre-saṃnyāsa work Tattvāloka is directly based on Anubhūtisvarūpācārya's Prakaṭārthavivaraṇa, a sub-commentary on the Śāṅkarabhāṣya of Brahmasūtra. It seems to be a work which he had composed in the earliest years of his life. As he entered saṃnyāsa directly after brahmacarya, it seems that he took saṃnyāsa at the least during his twenties. Subtracting twenty years from 1174 CE, gives us 1154 CE. If he had spent 69 years at the maṭha, his total lifespan may have been 89 years at the time of his death.
In the view of both the traditional as well as academic evidence, it could be said that Ānandajñāna's period is mid 12th century CE to mid 13th century CE, at the least. It could also be said that Citsukha's guru Jñānottama may as well be Ānandajñāna. This also suggests that the similarities found in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya, with Tattvapradīpikā and Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā respectively, may be the consequence of the Guru and Śiṣya relation between Ānandajñāna and Citsukha respectively. This would further imply that Ānandajñāna had also composed two other texts called Nyāyasudhā (mentioned by Citsukha), and Jñānasiddhi (mentioned by Pratyaksvarūpa).
The Jñānottama of Śṛṅgeri Maṭha
One Jñānottama is also mentioned as the Guru of two well known scholars of Advaita Vedānta, who are Vijñānātman (or Vijñānottama) and Uttamajña.
Vijñānātman composed his commentary Tātparyārthadyotinī on Pañcapādikā and Uttamajña composed Vaktavyakāśikā, also a commentary on Pañcapādikā. In the available verses where both of them mention the name of their Guru Jñānottama in the beginning of their works, unlike Citsukha, they do not mention the word 'satyānanda' in connection with their Guru's name.1137 Citsukha mentions 'satyānanda' together with 'jñānottamākhya' in every available introductory verse of his work. It could be said that this is because his introductory verses are identical in his available texts. One reason behind Citsukha using the same introductory verse in all such texts could be that it held a lot of importance for him, and so the connection between 'satyānanda' and 'jñānottamākhya' would be an important one. Hence, it could be said that the Guru of Citsukha and that of Vijnānātman and Uttamajña is not one and the same.
The names of the Guru, Jñānottama and of the Śiṣyas Vijñānātman (or Vijñānottama) and Uttamajña fit perfectly with each other. If Citsukha is taken to be the Śiṣya of this Jñānottama, then it seems that his name 'Citsukha' is odd in comparison with the names of his companion Śiṣyas. Also, if Citsukha is the disciple of this Jñānottama, it seems that after getting an odd name, he kept a congruent name of his own disciple Sukhaprakāśa. Naming of one's disciples has been taken seriously to this date. Hence, it seems that Citsukha may not be the disciple of this Jñānottama, whose name is recorded in the list of Śaṅkarācāryas of the Śṛṅgeri Maṭha. His being a disciple of this Jñānottama could be a misidentification based on the use of the word 'jñānottamākhya' in the introductory verses of his texts. Along with this, in the traditional list of Jagadgurus of the Śṛṅgeri Maṭha, Jñānottama stands at the fifth number, the first being Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's time is upto the early ninth century CE, and the second in the said list is Sureśvarācārya, who was a contemporary of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya. If we keep on adding 100 years' time from Sureśvarācārya onward for each head of the Maṭha, it is only then that we get Jñānottama's time to be 11th century CE. It cannot be said that the 100 years' gap between each Jagadguru is not unrealistic, because out of the Jagadgurus of whom a definite timeline exists, many have stayed for less than 50 years. It is then possible that the actual time period of Jñānottama would be between 9th and 10th centuries CE, in which case he is far from Citsukha, who is accepted to have lived between the 12th and 13th centuries CE. To think that Citsukha lived upto two or three centuries, wouldn't be very realistic, unless we could find an authoritative mention of it. In the Vaktavyakāśikā of Uttamajñayati published under the Śṛṅgeri Maṭha, it has been said that as per the traditional account of the Maṭha itself, the time period of Jñānottama is from 910-954 CE.[95] Hence it seems that the word 'jñānottamākhya' in Citsukha's introductory verses of Tattvapradīpikā, doesn't point to the Jñānottama, who was a disciple of Jñānaghana.
The only problem with the said list of the Kāñcī maṭha is that the copper-plate grant, which is dated to the 16th century CE, mentions the contemporary Ācāryas who are numbered 49th to 52nd in the list. The list in Puṇyaślokamañjarī was prepared at least in or around the 16th century CE. The Gururājaratnamālastava of Sadāśivabrahmendra also belongs to a very late period, around 18th century CE. S. V. Venkateswara says that the author of Gururājaratnamālastava cannot be taken as an authority regarding the more ancient Ācāryas in the list.[96] The similarity between the description of Ānandajñāna, the author of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and the one mentioned in Puṇyaślokamañjarī and in the commentary of Gururājaratnamālastava, is too specific to be ignored. Also, if we put him in the BCEs, or in the 9th century CE, it would push back the authors' time whom he has referred to in the Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and elsewhere. It may be the case that due to the great reverence for Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, some of the Advaita Ācāryas prior to him may have been pushed down the timeline in order to establish the former's seniority. Saccidānandrendra Sarasvatī in his book Śuddhaśāṅkaraprakriyābhāskara cites a statement of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya from his Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣya (2.1.20), to show that during the time of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, all the Upaniṣadvādins (scholars of the Upaniṣads) agreed that in all the Upaniṣads, it has been established that Jīva and Brahman are one.[97] This implies that even before Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's time, there were many Advaita Vedāntins, and not just of his own sampradāya.
This also may be the reason that the Kāñcī maṭha is believed not to be established by him. It may have been already there when he had arrived and he may simply have accepted it in his order, because there were Advaita Vedāntins already residing at the location. It is also well known that Ādi Śaṅkarācārya has mentioned Vijñānavādin Buddhists in his Brahmasūtrabhāṣya.[98] In that case, keeping his date as the 4th century BCE because of accepting the Puṇyaślokamañjarī's chronology in both letter and spirit, it would coincide with that of Gautama Buddha and would push the time of Gautama Buddha and the said Buddhists to a much earlier period.
A brief summary of the discussion and conclusion
i. There are striking similarities between Ānandajñāna's Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Citsukha's Tattvapradīpikā, and also between Ānandajñāna's Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya and Citsukha's Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā.
ii. Citsukha in the introduction of his Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā clearly says that he has collected the statements of the knowers of the sampradāya, whereas Ānandajñāna does not make any such statement, which implies that the similarity between Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya and Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā could be because of Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā being a collection of statements for which Citsukha had referred to Ānandajñāna's Nyāyanirṇaya.
iii. Citsukha in his Tattvapradīpikā mentions one probably unique idea of his Guru, from the text 'Nyāyasudhā', which is the idea that Māyā or Avidyā is one but has different ākāras. This idea is strikingly similar to the one mentioned by Ānandajñāna in his Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), especially due to the use of the word 'ākāra' instead of 'avasthā'.
iv. Appayya Dīkṣita mentions some Nyāyasudhākṛt who thinks that the knowledges of 'ghaṭaḥ san' and so forth are pratyakṣa, and that the knowledge of 'sattā' in ghaṭa and so forth is because they are connected with the sadrūpa Brahman. This is very similar to what Ānandajñāna has opined in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)
v. Citsukha in his Tattvapradīpikā, for a while, assumes the character of someone who believes in the idea of multiple Jīvas and multiple avidyās. In this portion of Tattvapradīpikā, he takes the corresponding pūrvapakṣa statements from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and supports them. Before such a discussion, many of his statements strikingly match with the corresponding statements in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)
vi. At certain parts, it becomes very clear that the text in Tattvapradīpikā is inspired by the corresponding text in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna)
vii. The hint about the name of Citsukha's Guru in the introductory verses of Tattvapradīpikā and also of Bhāṣyabhāvaprakāśikā, which is taken directly from the compound 'jñānottamākhya' doesn't necessarily mean that his Guru's name was Jñānottama, especially when he adds 'satyānandapadodita' along with 'jñānottamākhya'. Also, it is well known that some disciples never directly mentioned their Guru's name, but used synonyms and compound words to indicate it. Citsukha seems to either say that his Guru is some Jñānagiri (similar to Ānandajñānagiri) who is further a disciple of Satyānanda (similar to Śuddhānanda), or he seems to say that his Guru is some Satyānandajñāna (similar to Ānandajñāna).
viii. The names of Ānandajñāna, and his Guru's Guru Jñānānanda (reverse of Ānandajñāna), seem to fall in line with the names of Citsukha (synonym of Jñānānanda) and his disciple Sukhaprakāśa (synonym of Ānandajñāna). Citsukha's and his disciple Sukhaprakāśa's names don't align with Jñānaghana and Jñānottama. This could be because Citsukha was a disciple of Ānandajñāna and was hence named accordingly, and so was Sukhaprakāśa named. Two disciples of Jñānottama have their names similar to their Guru's, which are Vijñānottama and Uttamajña. And hence it seems that Citsukha's Guru was not literally this Jñānottama, who was one of the pontiffs of the Śṛṅgeri Maṭha.
ix. The traditional list of Jagadgurus of Śṛṅgeri Maṭha places Jñānottama around 9th to 10th centuries CE, whereas Citsukha is placed between 12th and 13th centuries CE. Ānandajñāna's date, is mid 12th century to mid 13th century CE, and is closer to that of Citsukha.
x. The date of Ānandajñāna which has been arrived at by keeping Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's date at early 9th century CE, fits with Ānandajñāna's mention of king Nṛsiṃhadeva of Kalinga, and also with Citsukha's generally accepted time period.
Hence it is highly likely that Ānandajñāna was the Guru of Citsukha, which the latter had intended to indicate through his introductory verses in his various texts. This also implies that the similarities between Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Tattvapradīpikā could be because Tattvapradīpikā was composed after and under the influence of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) In that case Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) must predate Tattvapradīpikā The idea that someone named as Jñānottama was Citsukha's Guru could be due to a misidentification based on the existence of a Jñānottama who was the Guru of Vijñānottama and Uttamajña.
Ānandajñāna has cited a verse from Tattvapradīpikā in his commentary on Nyāyaratnadīpāvalī.[99] At the end of his commentary, he gives his name as 'Ānandagiri'.[100] In Puṇyaślokamañjarī, Ānandajñāna is told to have spent his last days in Śrīśaila, a mountain region, today located in Andhra Pradesh. It was at that place, where he is said to have attained mukti. In the Maṭhāmnāyasetu of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, it has been said that the one who lives in forests or hills, is engaged in the study of Gītā and possesses deep and stable intellect, is given the name 'Giri'.[101] Keeping in view both of the aforementioned details, it could be the case that Ānandajñāna attained the name Ānandajñānagiri or Ānandagiri during the last portion of his life, while he was residing at Śrīśaila. Keeping in view the various reasons discussed earlier, merely one or two citations from Tattvapradīpikā can only prove that Tattvapradīpikā had been authored by the time Ānandajñāna had come to be known as Ānandagiri, which was towards the last part of his life. Also the verse which has been cited from Tattvapradīpikā, is merely a metrical re-statement of what the knowers of Vedānta have opined. It could be for this reason that Ānandajñāna cited the said verse from Tattvapradīpikā
Footnotes and references:
[2]:
Citsukha's Contribution To Advaita (Introduction), p. 2
[3]:
Advaita-Vedānta Literature, A Bibliographical Survey, p. 410
[4]:
Sukhaprakāśa-His Identity and Works, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. [1064], p. 343
[5]:
Identity of Suresvara, Journal of the Andhra Historical Research Society, Vol. 5, part 3, p. 188
[6]:
[7]:
[8]:
Śārīraka Mīmāṃsā Bhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 1, Preface
[9]:
[10]:
bṛhadāraṇyake bhāṣye śiṣyopakṛtisiddhaye/ sureśvaroktimāśritya kriyate nyāyanirṇayaḥ// -beginning of Ānandajñāna's commentary on Śāṅkarabhāṣya of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 3, p. 1
[12]:
Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 587
[13]:
Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 587
[15]:
Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 2), p. 90
[16]:
nāpi dvitīyaḥ yaddhūmatvaṃ yatra vā dhūmatvaṃ tadvahnitvaṃ tatra vā vahnitvamiti niyamāsaṃbhavāt tayorbhinnatvādbhinnādhikaraṇatvācca -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 589
[17]:
pṛthivītvamanityamātravṛtti pṛthivīmātravṛttitvāt paṭatvavaditi tarkasaṅgrahakārā manyante -Lakṣaṇāvalī (Udayana), p. 20 This is in Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 28.
[18]:
yattvatra tattvapradīpikākāreṇotpattyanantarakṣaṇe avyāptimudbhāvya guṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatve parihāramāśaṅkyotpattyanantarakṣaṇaviśiṣṭe kadācidapi guṇānudayāt punaravyāpteḥ tadavasthatvānnaivamiti parihṛtam -Lakṣaṇāvalī (Udayana), p. 4 atha caturviṃśatiguṇānāmanyatamaguṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatā vivakṣitā tadapi na anyatamaśabdena rūpāderevaikaikasya sarvasya vā vivakṣāyāṃ pūrvābhihitāvyāptidoṣasya tadavasthatvāt -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 455
[19]:
tadabhedāniyamāt tasminnapi tadatyantābhāvasambhavāt naivaṃ iti cet tarhi guṇavattapratiyogikasarvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatvasya vā lakṣaṇatve saiva ativyāptiḥ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 19
[20]:
kiñca yatkiñcidguṇavattvaṃ sarvaguṇavattvaṃ vā atyantābhāvapratiyogi na ādyaḥ pratiyogibhūtasya ekaikasya guṇasya sarvatra asambhavena lakṣaṇasya ananugatatvāpātāt/ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 19
[21]:
saṃkhyāvattvaṃ pratiyogitvena vivakṣitaṃ iti cet -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Paricched 1), p. 19
[22]:
atha caturviṃśatiguṇānāmanyatamaguṇavattvātyantābhāvānadhikaraṇatā vivakṣitā tadapi na anyatamaśabdena rūpāderevaikaikasya sarvasya vā vivakṣāyāṃ pūrvābhihitāvyāptidoṣasya tadavasthatvāt -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 455
[23]:
kiñcāsminnapi vakralakṣaṇe guṇādiṣvapi saṅkhyāpṛthaktvayoḥ pratīteḥ kathaṃ nātivyāptiḥ -Tattvapradīpikā, p. [1084]
[24]:
dravyagatasaṅkhyāpṛthaktvābhyāmeva tadekārthasamavāyalakṣaṇapratyāsatyā guṇādiṣvapi tadvyavahāropapattau vyarthā tatkalpaneti cet -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 457
[25]:
maivam viparyayasyāpi suvacatvāt -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 457
[26]:
dravyeṣu tatsaṃbhavāt dravyagatasattāsāmānyādibhireva guṇakarmaṇorapi sadvyavahāropapattau tatra sattāsāmānyakalpanāvaiyarthyaprasaṅgācca -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), pp. 457-458
[27]:
saṅkhyaikārthasamavāyāt tatra saṅkhyābuddhirna mukhyā iti cet tarhi sattaikārthasamavāyāt tatra sattādhīḥ na mukhyā ityapi syāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), p. 19 dravye eva saṅkhyāsvīkāre tatsaṃbandhād guṇepi kalpanālāghavād guṇe saṅkhyādyasvīkāra iti cenna viparītameva kuto na syāt sattāsāmānyamapi ca guṇādau kimarthamaṅgīkriyate/ dravyadvāraiva tatra tadvyavahāropapatteḥ/ -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), pp. 585-586
[28]:
na ca mantavyam guṇeṣvapi guṇābhyupagame'navasthāprasakteḥ saṅkhyāpṛthaktvapratītirbhrāntiriti rūpādiṣu tadabhyupagame'pi saṅkhyāpṛthaktvayoḥ saṅkhyāpṛthaktvāntarānabhyupagamenaivānasthāparihārāt -Tattvapradīpikā (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 456 saṅkhyāyāḥ saṅkhyāvattve'navasthāprasaṅgānnisaṅkhyatvavyavasthitau dṛṣṭāntatvaṃ bhaviṣyati iti cenna pṛthaktvenāpi tasyāḥ sambhāvitadravyakoṭipraveśatvāt -Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 582
[29]:
evaṃ hi nyāyasudhāyāmārādhyapādairupapāditam -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 960 Pratyaksvarūpa's commentary on the same: ārādhyapādāḥ svaguravaḥ jñānasiddhikārāḥ/ pādaśabdaśca pūjārthastatpraṇītaṃ ca vedāntaprakaraṇaṃ nyāyasudhā/
[30]:
saṃsāramūlakāraṇāvidyā yadyapyekaiva tathāpi tasyāḥ santyeva bahavaḥ ākārāḥ -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 960
[31]:
ātmājñānsya ekasyaiva ākārabhedābhiprāyatvāt -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 139
[32]:
athavā mūlājñānasyaiva avasthābhedāḥ rajatādyupādānāni śuktikādijñānaiḥ sahādhyāsena nivartante iti kalpyatām -Pañcapādikā (Vivaraṇa), p. 99
[33]:
Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), pp. 138-139
[34]:
na caikasminnanekājñānasvīkāre'parāddhānto yāvanti jñānāni tāvantyajñānānītyupagamāt/ na ca brahmaṇyapi rajjuvadanekājñānaprasaktāvamuktiḥ saviśeṣanirviśeṣatvābhyāṃ tayorbhedāttasminnapi tadākārabhedāṅgīkārācca -Ānandajñāna's commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika, Sambandhavārtika, verse 392. See Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika (Sureśvara), Part 1, Saṃbandhavārtika, p. 120
[35]:
tatra tenā''kāreṇāvidyā'vasthitetyāha tadavastheti -On Śāṅkarabhāṣya of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad [1097].3.20. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 3, p. 329
[36]:
mithyājñānahetubhūtānādyanirvācyadaṇḍāyamānājñāvaśādeśa bahurūpo bhāti/ prakārabhedāttu bahūktiriti -On Śāṅkarabhāṣya of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 2.6.2. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 3, p. 214
[37]:
[38]:
tadevaṃ svāvidyayā brahmaiva saṃsarati svavidyayā ca mucyate iti ekāvidyāpakṣe'pi na kaściddoṣaḥ tathā nānāvidyāpakṣe'pi -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), pp. 931-932
[39]:
yastāvadekaivāvidyeti pakṣe doṣaḥ so'nabhyupagamādeva parāstaḥ brahmaṇa evaikasya tattadanādyanantāvidyāvacchedenānantajīvanirbhāsāspadatvābhyupagamāt/ ekasyāpi ca jīvasyānekāvidyāsadbhāvābhyupagamāt/ iṣṭasiddhikārairapi yāvanti jñānāni tāvantyajñānānītyanekāvidyāsvīkārāt -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), pp. 936-937
[40]:
samarthitamekajīvavādamupasaṃharati tademiti -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 931
[41]:
evaṃ brahmasvabhāvāvidyāsaṃbandhādyanurodhena viśadamatīnprati ekajīvapakṣaḥ samarthitaḥ ye tu mandamatayo nibiḍadvaitavāsanāskandajaḍatamaśemuṣayo baddhamuktādivyavasthāsthemani baddhāsthā nānājīvapakṣameva rocayanti tānprati nānājīvapakṣamapyākṣepasamādhānābhyāmabhidarśayati -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 932
[42]:
yathā hi jāgratsvapnavibhedakaṃ nānā ajñānaṃ abhyupagataṃ tathaiva muktāmuktādirūpeṇa vyāvahārikānantajīvānāṃ śukavāmdevapāmaraprabhṛtīnāṃ pratibhānāt tadupapattaye taddhetubhūtānantājñānābhyupagame'pi na kiñcit dūṣaṇaṃ iti cet maivam -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 139 avidyā kalpyate'nekā jāgratsvapnavibheditā/ yathā tathaiva kalpyantāmanantāḥ sati kalpake//6// mamāpi muktāmuktādirūpeṇa vyāvahārikānantajīvānāṃ śukavāmadevaparāśaraprabhṛtīnāṃ pratibhāsanāttadupapattaye tattaddhetubhūtānekāvidyābhyupagame'pi na doṣaḥ/ -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), pp. 939-940
[43]:
brahmaṇaḥ cet ajñānāśrayatvaṃ vidvadavidvadguruśiṣyādivyavasthā'siddhiḥ iti cet na... yāvadajñānaṃ sarvavyavasthānāṃ svapnavat upapannatvāt nivṛtte tu jñānāt ajñāne vyavasthāhetvabhāvāt na kācidapi vyavasthā'sti -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 138 yattu brahmaṇa evāvidyāśrayatve vidvadavidvadguruśiṣyabandhamokṣavyavasthā na syāditi tadasat yāvadavidyaṃ sarvavyavasthānāṃ svapnavadupapatteḥ/ nivṛttāyāṃ tasyāṃ na kācidapi vyavasthā/ -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 915
[44]:
kalpitatvāviśeṣe'pi kiṃcidvyāvahārikaṃ yaddehādyātmabhāvādinivartakātmasākṣātkāraparyantamanuvartate kiṃcitprātibhāsikaṃ yatpramātṛtvādivyavahāre satyeva nivartata ityavāntarabhedasiddhaye avidyābhedaḥ kalpanīya iti cet -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 939
[45]:
Just before this portion, Citsukha states: yastāvadekaivāvidyeti pakṣe doṣaḥ so'nabhyupagamādeva parāstaḥ brahmaṇa evaikasya tattadanādyanantāvidyāvacchedenānantajīvanirbhāsāspadatvābhyupagamāt -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 936
[46]:
mamāpi muktāmuktādirūpeṇa vyavahārikānantajīvānāṃ śukavāmadevaparāśaraprabhṛtīnāṃ pratibhāsanāttadupapattaye tattaddhetubhūtānekāvidyābhyupagame'pi na doṣaḥ -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), pp. 939-940 Notice the phrase "...anekādvidyābhyupame'pi na doṣaḥ". How could avidyābheda be presented as a doṣa in avidyābhedavāda to refute it? [1109]... vyavahārikānantajīvānāṃ... tattaddhetubhūtānekāvidyābhyupagame'pi -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), pp. 939-940
[47]:
muktāmuktādirūpeṇa vyāvahārikānantajīvānāṃ... tattaddhetubhūtānantājñānābhyupagame'pi na kiñcit dūṣaṇaṃ iti cet -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 139
[48]:
avidyā kalpyate'nekā jāgratsvapnavibheditā/ yathā tathaiva kalpyantāmanantāḥ sati kalpake//6// -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 939
[49]:
avidyābhedaḥ kalpanīya iti cet -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 939
[50]:
nyāyasudhākṛtastvāhuḥ ghaṭāderaindriyakatve'pi san ghaṭa ityādiradhiṣṭhānasattānuvedha iti na virodhaḥ/ evaṃ nīlo ghaṭa ityādiradhiṣṭhānanailyānuvedhaḥ kiṃ na syāditi cet na/ śrutyā sadrūpasya vastuno jagadupādānatvamuktamavirodhāt sarvasaṃmatamiti tadanuvedhenaiva san ghaṭa ityādipratibhāsopapattau ghaṭādāvapi sattākalpane gauravam/ tasya rūpādihīnatvānnailyādikaṃ ghaṭādāveva kalpanīyamiti vaiṣamyamiti -Siddhāntaleśasaṃgraha (Appayya Dīkṣita) (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 233
[51]:
sarvatra anuvṛtte sattāsāmānye pariśiṣṭānāṃ antarbhāvasambhavāt tasyaiva ekasya tenatenātmanā prathamānatvopapattau vastubhedakalpanāyā niṣprayojanatvāt/ tathā ca ghaṭaḥ sanpaṭaḥ sannityādi pratyakṣaṃ etadanukūlaṃ ālakṣyate/ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 1), pp. 18-19
[52]:
sattvamekaṃ hi sāmānyamanyattatraiva kalpitam/ na cādhiṣṭhānato'nyatra kalpitaṃ siddhimaśnute// sarvatrānuvṛttaṃ sanmātrameva vastubhūtaṃ abhyupetavyaṃ sadvyavahārānuvṛtteḥ sārvatrikatvāt/ tatraiva ca anyat dravyatvādi sarvamapi kalpyate dravyatvādau sadvyavahārasya kalpanādhīnatvāt/ na ca tat tato'nyatra asti kalpitasya adhiṣṭhānātirekeṇa sattā'sphuraṇāt/ -Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) (Pariccheda 3), p. 122
[53]:
atrāhustattvaśuddhikārādayaḥ na pratyakṣaṃ ghaṭapaṭādi tatsattvaṃ vā gṛhṇāti kiṃ tvadhiṣṭhānatvena ghaṭādyanugataṃ sanmātram/ -Siddhāntaleśasaṃgraha (Appayya Dīkṣita) (Dvitīya Pariccheda), p. 230
[54]:
[55]:
jyotiryaddakṣiṇāmūrti vyāsaśaṅkaraśabditam/ jñānottamākhyaṃ tadvande satyānandapadoditam// -Tattvapradīpikā (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 4 and Śārīraka Mīmāṃsā Bhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 1, p. 1
[56]:
coleṣu maṅgalamiti prathitārthanāmni grāme vasanpitṛgurorabhidhāṃ dadhānaḥ/ jñānottamaḥ sakaladarśanapāradraṣṭā naiṣkarmyasiddhivivṛtiṃ kurute yathāvat//5// (Candrikā) -Naiṣkarmyasiddhi (Sureśvara) (Prathama Adhyāya), p. 1
[57]:
śrīgauḍeśvarācāryaparamahaṃsaparivrājakācāryajñānottamapūjyapādaśiṣyaśrīmatparamahaṃsaparivrājakācāryaśrīcitsukhamuniviracitāyāṃ tattvapradīpikāyām caturthaḥ paricchedaḥ -Tattvapradīpikā (Caturtha Pariccheda), p. 966
[58]:
mumukṣusārthavāhasya bhavanāmabhṛto yateḥ/ śiṣyaścakāra tadbhaktyā sureśākhyo mahārthavit// -Taittirīyabhāṣyavārttika, Bhṛguvallī, 10.49. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 1, p. 628
[59]:
taṃ vande'trikulaprasūtamamalaṃ vedho'bhidhaṃ madgurum// -Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārttika, Adhyāya 6, Brāhmaṇa 5, verse 23. See Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika (Sureśvara), Part 3, p. 2072
[60]:
[61]:
[62]:
Entry on 'giri', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 4, p. 2588
[63]:
Entry on 'uttama', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 2, p. 1087
[64]:
aparaṃ dakṣiṇāmūrtiṃ tamānandagiriṃ bhaje. See Footnote 1103.
[65]:
Entry on 'udita', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 2, p. 1165
[66]:
Entry on 'uttama', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 2, p. 1087
[67]:
Entry on 'udita', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 2, p. 1165
[69]:
Mss. no. 7448, Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Tanjore Mahārāja Serfoji's Sarasvatī Mahāl Library, Vol. XIII. Mss. no. 282, Descriptive Catalogue of the Government Collective of Manuscripts, Deposited at the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Vol. IX, Part I.
[71]:
viśvānubhavapādānāmavāpa padavīmaham..// -Verse 2 of Ānandajñāna's commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika, Adhyāya 6, Brāhmaṇa 5. See Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣyavārtika (Sureśvara), Part 3, p. 2074
[72]:
Vedāntatattvāloka (Janārdana), p. xv
[73]:
Identity of Suresvara, Journal of Andhra Historical Research Society, Vol. 5, Part 3, pp. 187-192
[74]:
Entry on 'cit', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 4, p. 2930 Entry on 'sukha', Vachaspatyam, Vol. 6, p. 5307
[75]:
[76]:
gurave parapakṣaughadhvāntadhvaṃsapaṭīyase -Verse 2 of Ānandajñāna's commentary on Śāṅkarabhāṣya of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Adhyāya 1, Sambandhabhāṣya. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 3, p. 1. Same in the beginning of Ānandajñāna's commentary on Śāṅkarabhāṣya commentary on Chāndogya Upaniṣad. See Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 2, p. 1.
[77]:
vādivāraṇasaṃdohaprabhañjanaviśāradam/ śrīmadānandaśailāhvapañcāsyaṃ satataṃ bhaje -Tattvadīpana (Akhaṇḍānanda) (Sūtra 1, Prathama Varṇaka), p. 1, verse 4.
[78]:
Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. XI, p. 602
[79]:
Puṇyaślokamañjarī of Sarvajñasadāśivabodhendra, Gururājaratnamālāstavavyākhyā of Ātmabodhendra Sarasvatī on Gururājaratnamālāstava of Sadāśivabrahmendra.
[81]:
The Date of Sankaracharya, the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 156
[82]:
The Date of Sankaracharya, the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, p. 157
[83]:
tāmrārodhasi vardhanāt samuditas saṃnyāsitas saptamāt prāgeva..// -Puṇyaślokamañjarī, p. 3, verse 7
[84]:
tatpīṭhe sasureśvaraṃ samanayad varṣāṃśca yaḥ saptatiṃ catvāriṃśatamāsta sadvayamasāvabdān svayaṃ tanmaṭhe..// -Puṇyaślokamañjarī, p. 3, verse 7
[85]:
[89]:
prakaṭitaparamācāryabhāṣyaughabhāṣyaḥ..// -Puṇyaślokamañjarī, p. 6, verse 14
[90]:
[91]:
Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. XI, p. 557
[92]:
Citsukha's contribution to Advaita, Introduction
[93]:
śrīśailāntikamāsadan...// -Puṇyaślokamañjarī, p. 6, verse 15
[94]:
brahmacaryācca saṃnyasto..// -Maṭhāmāyasetu, verse 34. See Puṇyaślokamañjarī, p. 62
[95]:
[96]:
Kudiyantandal Grant of Vira-Nrisimha: Saka 1429, Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 14, p. 234
[97]:
"api ca na kevalaṃ dvaityādivedāntyabhāvo bhagavatpādānāṃ kāle kvacidapi tatparāmarśābhāvabalādevonnīyate kiṃ tu sākṣādvacanamapi dṛśyate bhāṣye tadānīṃ tadabhāvābhidhāyakam ityato'pi/ tadyathā bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣye - (1) sarvopaniṣatsu hi vijñānātmanaḥ paramātmanā ekatvapratyayo vidhīyata ityavipratipattiḥ sarveṣāmupaniṣadvādinām// bṛ. bhā. 2-1-20" -Śuddhaśāṅkaraprakriyābhāskara, p. 2
[99]:
pratyekaṃ sadasatvābhyāṃ vicārapadavīṃ na yad/ gāhate tadanirvācyamāhurvedāntavedinaḥ// -Nyāyaratnadīpāvalī (Ānandānubhava) (Dvitīya Adhyāya), p. 178 and Tattvapradīpikā (Prathama Pariccheda), p. 206, verse 13.
cakre vakravilakṣaṇena supathenānandapūrvo giriḥ -Nyāyaratnadīpāvalī (Ānandānubhava) (Caturtha Adhyāya), p. 396