Part 6 - Ānandabodha and Ānandajñāna

Ānandabodha is another important author of texts on Advaita Vedānta. Nyāyamakaranda, Pramāṇamālā, Nyāyadīpāvali and Nyāyadīpikā are his known texts. His Nyāyamakaranda has been commented upon by Citsukha and his disciple Sukhaprakāśa also. His time is said to be 1150 CE. His texts like Pramāṇamālā and Nyāyadīpāvali are dialectical in nature.

The two names, which are, Ānandabodha and Ānandajñāna are highly synonymous. Both authors have a command over the dialectical way of stating things. Irrespective of the synonymity of the names, Ānandabodha and Ānandajñāna are taken to be two different authors, of which Ānandabodha is earlier in the chronology. As has been suggested, Ānandajñāna is very likely to fall between 1154 CE to 1243 CE. This timeline is similar to that of Ānandabodha. Although one may not feel the need to further examine if these are really two different authors or not, some excerpts from the texts of both shall now be presented for analysis.

To start with, following are the maṅgalācaraṇas from Ānandabodha's Nyāyamakaranda and Ānandajñāna's Tarkasaṅgraha.

Nyāyamakaranda	Tarkasaṅgraha
yadbhāsā nikhilaṃ vibhāti viṣayo yo na svayaṃ jyotiṣāṃ/ yasyā''hurbhuvanodbhavasthitilayān līlāmayān sūrayaḥ// yaṃ cā'gocaramāmananti manasāṃ vācāṃ ca viśvātmane/ tasmai śuddhasukhādvitīyavapuṣe śaśvannamo viṣṇave//1//	yasmādetadudeti viśvamadhunā yatra sthitaṃ bhāsate, yatrānte pralayaṃ prayāti sakalaṃ vyomādimāyāmayam/ yaṃ cāmnāyavacāṃsi bhāvasahitān-yācakṣate sākṣiṇaṃ, taṃ vande puruṣottamaṃ pratidinaṃ, pratyañcamastadvayam//1//

As can be clearly seen, both the verses are in the same meter, which is śārdūlavikrīḍita, and both talk about the same issue, which is the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world. Ānandabodha calls the creation, sustenance and dissolution of the world as a līlā, whereas Ānandajñāna calls the elements of creation as māyā. Both pay obeisance to a form of Viṣṇu.

This could be a mere coincidence, or could be a case of Ānandajñāna being influenced by the verse of Ānandabodha. Hence, looking at some more excerpts from the texts of both shall be necessary. Following are other excerpts from both the texts.

Nyāyamakaranda	Tarkasaṅgraha
svarūpaprajñayāpi nāntareṇāvidyāmaśeṣārthasaṅgatir-asaṅgatvād asaṅgo'hyayaṃ puruṣa iti śruteḥ na cāvidyāmantareṇāsti sambandha ityupapāditam ataḥ sarvajñatāvidyāvattāmākṣipatyeva paramātmano na pratikṣipati (Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), pp. 323-324)	brahmaṇo yadi svarūpaprajñayā sarvajñatvaṃ vivakṣitaṃ tadā tasya asaṅgasya na ajñānaṃ antareṇa aśeṣārthasaṅgatiḥ iti sarvajñatvasiddhyarthameva ajñānaṃ abhyupagantavyam (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 137)
kasyāvidyā yaducchittirmuktiriṣṭā parātmanaḥ/ vidyāsvabhāvato'yuktā sā'to jīvo na bhidyate// na tāvat parasya brahmaṇo viśuddhacitprakāśayeyamavidyā yuktā prakāśāprakāśayoḥ parasparapratyanīkatvād adhikaraṇādhyabhāvānupapatteḥ/ syānmataṃ jīvānāmavidyābhyupeyata iti tadapyayuktaṃ vikalpāsahatvāt sa khalu paramātmanaḥ kiṃ vyatiricyate no vā yadyādyaḥ pakṣastarhyadvaitapakṣakṣatir anena jīvenātmanā iti jīvaparamātmanostādātmyaśrutivyākopaśca parācīnapakṣe tu prācīnadoṣānuṣaṅgo durnivāraḥ (Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), p. 309)	kāsyājñānaṃ na sarvajñe pare tadupapadyate/ jīvānāṃ tadabhinnatvānnaiva teṣu ghaṭiṣyate// na tāvat idaṃ ajñānaṃ brahmaṇo yuktam tasya sarvajñasya tadanupapatteḥ nāpi jīvānāṃ ajñānaṃ bhavituṃ arhati teṣāṃ paramārthato brahmābhinnatvāt kalpitabhedānāṃ ca rajabhujaṅgādivat kalpitatvena ajñānātmakatvāt tadāśrayatvayogāt (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 137)

The excerpts each from both the texts show a lot of similarity between the statements of Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) As has been mentioned earlier, Citsukha has authored a commentary on Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) During his commentary on a certain portion of Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) related to anirvācyatva of avidyā, Citsukha mentions a definition of anirvācyatva, which is the same as the one stated by Ānandajñāna in his Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) Following are both the definitions:

Citsukha	Ānandajñāna
sattvānadhikaraṇatve satyasattvānadhikaraṇatve sati sadasattvānadhikaraṇatvamanirvācyatvaṃ (Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), p. 115)	sattvānadhikaraṇatve sati asattvānadhikaraṇatve sati sadasattvānadhikaraṇatvaṃ anirvācyatvaṃ (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), p. 136)

What could this imply? It is highly likely that Citsukha had kept Ānandajñāna's Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) for reference, while the former was authoring his commentary on Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) It is also to be noted that in his own text Tattvapradīpikā, Citsukha does not give this definition of anirvācyatva.

His own definition is as follows:

"sattvenāsattvena ca vicārāsahatve sati sadasattvena ca yadvicāraṃ na sahate tadanirvācyam"^[1]

Two questions arise; why did Citsukha refer to Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) to comment on a passage of Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha)? and, why did he not mention his own definition in it? The answer to the second question is rather easy, that is, Tattvapradīpikā was authored after Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and also after Citsukha's commentary on Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), and hence by the time Tattvapradīpikā was being authored, he had changed the definition and mentioned it in his own text, Tattvapradīpikā

The answer to the first question could be given in this manner; the author of Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) is one and the same. Ānandabodha does not himself mention the said definition in his Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), but on a certain portion, Citsukha adds the definition via his commentary. Ānandajñāna may have come up with the definition later, that is, when he authored Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) The reason why Citsukha took the definition from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) could be that there is no better option, while commenting on a text, to refer to another (latest) text of the same author to make the author's own point clear.

A passage from Tattvapradīpikā also seems to suggest that Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) could be the works of the same author. In the following passage, Citsukha follows both Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha)

Ānandabodha	Ānandajñāna	Citsukha
svarūpaprajñayāpi nāntareṇāvidyāmaśeṣārthasaṅga tir-asaṅgatvād asaṅgo'hyayaṃ puruṣa iti śruteḥ na cāvidyāmantareṇāsti sambandha ityupapāditam ataḥ sarvajñatāvidyāvattāmākṣipatye va paramātmano na pratikṣipati (Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), pp. 323-324)	brahmaṇo yadi svarūpaprajñayā sarvajñatvaṃ vivakṣitaṃ tadā tasya asaṅgasya na ajñānaṃ antareṇa aśeṣārthasaṅgatiḥ iti sarvajñatvasiddhyarthameva ajñānaṃ abhyupagantavyam/ pramāṇataḥ sarvajñatve'pi pramātṛtvasya pramāṇaprameyasambandhasya ca ajñānamantareṇa asiddheḥ tasmin ajñānavattvaṃ avaśyaṃ āśrayitavyaṃ anyathā sarvajñatvāyogāt (Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), pp. 137-138)	svarūpraprajñayā cetsarvajñatvaṃ brahmaṇo'bhyupagamyate tadā asaṅgasya nāvidyāmantareṇāśeṣārthasaṅga tiriti sarvajñopapattyarthameva sābhyupagamanīyā/ pramāṇataḥ sarvajñatve'pi pramātṛtvasya pramāṇaprameyasambandhasya cāvicāritaramaṇīyānādyavidyās ambandhamantareṇāsiddheḥ sarvajñatvamavidyāvattāmākṣip ati na tu pratikṣipatīti (Tattvapradīpikā, p. 912)

In the above excerpts from Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) and Tattvapradīpikā, one can clearly see that the one from Tattvapradīpikā contains portions of both Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) More interestingly, in Tattvapradīpikā the statement beginning from "pramāṇataḥ sarvajñatve'pi" ends with a statement very similar to the statement from Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), which is "sarvajñatāvidyāvattāmākṣipatyeva paramātmano na pratikṣipati", and is noted by Citsukha as "sarvajñatvamavidyāvattāmākṣipati na tu pratikṣipatīti", where he ends the whole statement with 'iti', as if it were the statement of one single person. This cannot be either a mistake on the part of Citsukha or a mere coincidence. Before 'sarvajñatvamavidyāvattāmākṣipati', the whole statement is from Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) This suggests that in Citsukha's view, Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) have some kind of a unity, and that the unity is likely to be because both have been authored by one and the same person.

But the question arises, if it is really the case that Ānandabodha is Ānandajñāna, why has he not mentioned his Guru's name, that is Śuddhānanda in his maṅgalācaraṇas? To answer the question, the following portion from the previously quoted maṅgalācaraṇa of Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) is to be observed carefully.

"tasmai śuddhasukhādvitīyavapuṣe śaśvannamo viṣṇave"

It is clear that in Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), Ānandabodha has not directly talked about his Guru in the maṅgalācaraṇa. Is it possible that he may have combined his Guru's name in the apparent adjective of Viṣṇu in the aforesaid line from the maṅgalācaraṇa? The word 'śuddhasukha' is a direct synonym of 'śuddhānanda'. 

Following is the maṅgalācaraṇa from his Nyāyadīpāvali.

"jagadaṅkurabījāya viśadānandamūrtaye/ galitākhilabhedāya namaḥ śāntāya viṣṇave//"^[2]

Here he has used the word 'viśadānanda', which is also a synonym of 'śuddhānanda'. At least two of his maṅgalācaraṇas contain synonyms of 'śuddhānanda', while being shown as adjectives of Viṣṇu. But the question arises; has Ānandajñāna composed his maṅgalācaraṇas in such a manner?

Following is a maṅgalācaraṇa from one of his works.

"yadabodhādidaṃ bhāti yadbodhādvinivartate/
namastasmai parānandavapuṣe paramātmane//"^[3]

Here a similar word is 'parānanda', where the word 'para' stands for ultimate/ fundamental and hence pure (unmixed), making the word 'parānanda' synonymous with 'śuddhānanda'. Another of his maṅgalācaraṇas is as follows. 

"vidhūtavividhopādhivyādhibodhaikamūrtaye/
pratīce paramānandavapuṣe brahmaṇe namaḥ//
heyādeyabhidāvādo yasminnarthaṃ na gāhate/
taṃ pratyañcaṃ parānandaṃ puruṣottamamāśraye//"^[4]

In both the maṅgalācaraṇas, Ānandajñāna has not mentioned his Guru directly. But can a disciple from such a tradition miss paying obeisance to his Guru?

An affirmative answer to this shall not be desirable because a Guru holds an almost infallible position in a traditional Śiṣya's life and it cannot be compromised. It can be seen as a common factor that the maṅgalācaraṇas of Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) and Nyāyadīpāvali on the one hand and those of Ānandajñāna's Pañcīkaraṇavyākhyā and Svarūpanirūpaṇaṭīkā on the other, use the words 'vapus' and 'mūrti' along with the synonyms of 'śuddhānanda'.

Citsukha's disciple Sukhaprakāśa has composed maṅgalācaraṇas which unequivocally show the prevalence of combining one's Guru's name or personality with some deity. 

Following is his maṅgalācaraṇa in his commentary on Tattvapradīpikā:

"svātmāvabodhavibhavadrutamohanidraṃ vidrāvitadvayakathaṃ vitathādapetaṃ/
saccitsukhormighanamakṣaramīkṣitāro yaṃ yogino narahariṃ tamimaṃ namāmaḥ//"^[5]

Here it can be seen that Sukhaprakāśa has used 'Saccitsukhormighana' as an adjective of Narahari or Narasiṃha. Although he does not use any word to indicate that Citsukha is his Guru, he is no doubt his Guru because Sukhaprakāśa has not changed his Guru's name to a substantial extent. 

His maṅgalācaraṇa from his Adhikaraṇaratnamālā is as follows:

"vādigandhakaridarpamardanaprasphurannayakaroruhāvilam/
āgamasmṛtinijāruṇekṣaṇaṃ citsukhākhyanakharāyudhaṃ numaḥ//"^[6]  

Here, 'Citsukha' has been stated to be the name of 'Nakharāyudha' or lion, who is most probably Narasiṃha.

But there is a text of Ānandabodha, which mentions one 'Ātmāvāsa' as his Guru. In his text Nyāyadīpikā, a commentary on Prakāśātmayati's Śābdanirṇaya. This maṅgalācaraṇa has been taken from Dr. Rabindra Kumar Panda's book 'Ānandabodhayati (Life & Philosophy)'. Along with that, there is a maṅgalācaraṇa at the end of Ānandajñāna's commentary on Bṛhadāraṇyakabhāṣya of Ādi Śaṅkarācārya.

Following are both of them:

Ānandabodha	Ānandajñāna
namaḥ nikhilasaṃsārasāgarottarasetave/ saṃsṛtākhilasaṃkalpakalpavṛkṣāya saṃbhave// namo nikhilavedāntakamalākarabhānave/ ātmāvāsābhidhānāya gurave guṇaveśmane// (p. 35)	namo janmādisambandhahetuvidhvaṃsahetave/ haraye paramānandaparijñānavapurbhṛte// namastrayyantasaṃdohasarasīruhabhānave/ gurave parapakṣaughadhvāntadhvaṃsapaṭīyase// (Upaniṣadbhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 3, p. 447)

Just like the maṅgalācaraṇas of Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) and Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna), these two also hold a lot of similarity with each other. One specific line from both is to be noted, which has been directly placed near 'gurave' to make it appear as an adjective of the Guru. 

Following are the lines for comparison.

"namaḥ nikhilavedāntakamalākarabhānave/" (Ānandabodha)

"namastrayyantasaṃdohasarasīruhabhānave/" (Ānandajñāna)

Both these lines seem like two slightly different versions of each other. Ānandajñāna has again used 'paramānanda' in his verse. 

The line at the beginning of both maṅgalācaraṇas is also worth noting.

"namaḥ nikhilasaṃsārasāgarottarasetave/" (Ānandabodha)

"namo janmādisambandhahetuvidhvaṃsahetave/" (Ānandajñāna)

In the above mentioned lines, Ānandabodha is calling his Guru as the bridge by which one can cross the sāgara of the whole saṃsāra. Ānandajñāna is calling his Guru as someone who destroys the cause of the sambandha with janman and so forth (sthiti and pralaya). It is safe to conclude that even in the maṅgalācaraṇas where the authors have not mentioned their Gurus by name, they may have mentioned them by combining or uniting their Guru with Brahman, Viṣṇu, and so forth. It is somewhat similar to what Citsukha has done in his maṅgalācaraṇa of Tattvapradīpikā, as quoted earlier. He says that there is one light called Dakṣiṇāmūrti and that Śaṅkara, Vyāsa and his Guru are but different names of the same.

Now, regarding the direct statement of the name 'Ātmāvāsa', it is to be noted that in his Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha), Ānandabodha mentions his Nyāyadīpikā, which implies that it was authored before Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha)^[7] The question then arises that why did not he mention his Guru Ātmāvāsa in his Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha)? It is also to be noted that the expression 'ātmāvāsābhidhāna' does not necessarily mean that Ānandabodha's Guru had the name 'Ātmāvāsa'. As cited earlier, Sureśvara uses the expression "vedho'bhidha" for his Guru, which if taken literally, would make Ādi Śaṅkarācārya's name to be 'Vedhas'. Another way in which the word 'ātmāvāsa' can be understood is 'ātmā eva āvāso yasya' (of whom Self alone is the abode). Ātman is taken to be of the form of highest bliss.^[8] Such a bliss is pure, because it is not mixed with anything else, in which sense it is 'śuddhānanda'. Ānandajñāna uses the expression 'pariśuddhaparamānanda' to denote the purest form of Ātman, which is during mokṣa.^[9] Hence, the one who has realised one's Self as being 'śuddhānanda' and whose abode (āvāsa) is only the Self, could be 'Ātmāvāsa'. In this sense, Ātmāvāsa could be a philosophically constructed synonym of Śuddhānanda. Other than the mention in Nyāyadīpikā's maṅgalācaraṇa, there is no other information available about Ātmāvāsa.

Keeping in view the evidences presented above, it is likely that Ānandabodha and Ānandajñāna is one and the same person. The time of Ānandabodha, which is 1150 CE is also not far away from the re-estimated time of Ānandajñāna, which is 1154 CE (which could be shifted a bit earlier).

In the view of the preceding detailed discussion and analysis, it can be safely said that Ānandajñāna's Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) at least predates Citsukha's Tattvapradīpikā and that Ānandajñāna may as well be Citsukha's Guru. It could further be considered that Tarkasaṅgraha (Ānandajñāna) predates even Śrīharṣa's Khaṇḍanakhaṇḍakhādya (Śrīharṣa) If Citsukha is indeed Ānandajñāna's disciple, then it would imply that Ānandajñāna had also authored other texts like Nyāyasudhā and Jñānasiddhi, which are yet to be found. If his being the same as Ānandabodha is true, then the texts authored by the latter, shall also be of Ānandajñāna.


Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Tattvapradīpikā (Prathama Pariccheda), pp. 206-207

[2]:

Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) (Nyāyadīpāvali), p. 1

[3]:

Pañcīkaraṇavyākhyā, Prakaraṇadvādaśī, p. 431

[4]:

Svarūpanirūpaṇaṭīkā, Prakaraṇadvādaśī, p. 587

[5]:

Folio number 2 of manuscript M-4716 at the Lalchand Library, DAV College, Chandigarh.

[6]:

Sukhaprakāśa -His Identity And Works, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, 23(1/4), p. 351

[7]:

diṅmātramatra sūcitaṃ vistarastu nyāyadīpikāyāmavagantavyaḥ -Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) (Siddhe Saṅgatigrahasattvasthāpanam), p. 170

[8]:

niratiśayasukhātmanyadvitīye prakāśe -Nyāyamakaranda (Ānandabodha) (Siddhe Saṅgatigrahasattvasthāpanam), p. 179

[9]:

mokṣe tu nirmṛṣṭanikhiladuḥkhānuṣaṅgapradyotamānapariśuddhaparamānandarūpeṇeti viśeṣa ityarthaḥ -Ānandajñāna's commentary on Śāṅkarabhāṣya on Brahmasūtra 4.4.1. See Śārīraka Mīmāṃsā Bhāṣya (Ādi Śaṅkarācārya), Vol. 2, p. 1222.