Mandana Mishra (; c. ) was a Hindu philosopher who wrote on the MëmÃÂá¹Âsàand Advaita systems of thought. He was a follower of the Karma Mimamsa school of philosophy and a staunch defender of the holistic sphota doctrine of language. He was a contemporary of Adi Shankara, and while it is said that he became a disciple of Adi Sankara, he seems to have been the most authoritative Advaitin until the 10th century CE. He is often identified with Sureà Âvara, though the authenticity of this is doubtful. Still, the official Sringeri documents recognises Mandana Mishra as Sureà Âvara.
Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra, who was a contemporary of Shankara, is known to be a student of the Mimamsa scholar Kumarila Bhatta. He wrote several treatises on Mimamsa, but also a work on Advaita, the Brahmasiddhi (Sanskrit: à ¤¬à ¥Âà ¤°à ¤¹à ¥Âà ¤®à ¤¸à ¤¿à ¤¦à ¥Âà ¤§à ¤¿). The word Brahmasiddhi is a composite of two Sanskrit words, Brahma, "God," and Siddhi, "realisation" or "enlightenment." Thus the literal meaning of the word Brahmasiddhi is "realization of BrahmanâÂÂ, referring to the "sure knowledge of ultimate reality."
It introduced the concept of anirvacaniyatva, the "inexpressibility of Maya-Avidya as existent or non-existent as identical or different from Brahman," a comon notion in Advaita which did not derive from Shankara. Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âra argues that Avidya is neither the essence of Brahman, nor any other thing. It is neither absolutely non-existent, nor existent. So, it is called avidya (ignorance), maya (illusion), mithydvabhdsa (false appearance). He further argues that if it were the essence of a thing, whether distinct from it or not, it would be ultimately real, and so would not be ignorance. If it were absolutely non-existent, it would not be able to enter into practical action like the sky-flower. Hence it is inexpressible.
Another important concept in Brahmasiddhi is nirupdkhya, "indescribable". According to Mandan Mishra "real is describable but it does not mean all that is describable is fully real." According to him "the verbal knowledge of Brahman must be supplemented or transformed by direct knowledge, he nowhere said that Brahman is beyond words."
Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra probably was more influential in the Advaita Vedanta tradition than is usually acknowledged. According to Richard E. King,
According to King and Roodurmun, until the 10th century Sankara was overshadowed by his older contemporary Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra. In the centuries after Sankara it was Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra who was considered to be the most important representative of Vedanta. His influence was such, that some regard this work to have "set forth a non-Sankaran brand of Advaita." The "theory of error" set forth in the Brahma-siddhi became the normative Advaita Vedanta theory of error. According to Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra, errors are opportunities because they "lead to truth", and full correct knowledge requires that not only should one understand the truth but also examine and understand errors as well as what is not truth.
His student Vachaspati Mià Âhra, who is believed to have been an incarnation of Shankara to popularize the Advaita view, wrote the Bhamati, a commentary on Shankara's Brahma Sutra Bhashya, and the Brahmatattva-samiksa, a commentary on Mandana Mishra's Brahma-siddhi. His thought was mainly inspired by Mandana Mià Âhra, and harmonises Shankara's thought with that of Mandana Mià Âhra. According to Advaita tradition, Shankara reincarnated as Vachaspati Mià Âhra "to popularise the Advaita System through his Bhamati."
Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra's influence and status can also be discerned in a popular legend about his debate with Adi Shankara. According to legend, described in biographies of Shankara, Adi Shankara debated with Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra. The vanquished would become a disciple of the victor and accept his school of thought. According to this legend, Sankara defeated Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra, and as agreed, Maá¹Âá¸Âana became a disciple of Sankara and assumed the name Suresvaracharya. According to the Advaita Vedanta tradition, Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra along with Hastamalaka, PadmapÃÂda, and Totakacharya was one of the four main disciples of Sankara and was the first head of Sringeri Mutt, one of the four mathas that Shankara later established.
Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra has often been identified with Sureà Âvara, based on the hagiographic ', which postdate Sgankara by more than five centuries. The hagiographies are filled with legends and fiction, often mutually contradictory. Sureà Âvara (fl. 800-900 CE) and Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra were contemporaries of Shankara. A strong tradition in Hinduism states that he started life as a MëmÃÂmsaka, became a sannyÃÂsin and an Advaitin after Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra and his wife Ubhaya Bharati were defeated by Shankara in a debate and was given the yogapatta or monastic name "Sureshwara".
According to Kuppuswami Sastri, it is not likely that Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra, the author of Brahmasiddhi, is identical with Sureà Âvara, but the tradition is correct in describing Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra and à Âankara as contemporaries. His critical edition of the Brahmasiddhi also points out that the name Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra is both a title and a first name, which is a possible cause for a confusion of personalities. Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âhra's brand of Advaita differs in certain critical details from that of à Âhankara, whereas Sureà Âvara's thought is very faithful to that of à Âhankara.
According to Sharma, Hiriyanna and Kuppuswami Sastra have pointed out that Sureà Âvara and Maá¹Âá¸Âana Mià Âra had different views on various doctrinal points:
According to R. Balasubramanian there is no conclusive evidence available to identify Maá¹Âá¸Âana, the author of the Brahmasiddhi, with Sureà Âvara, the author of the Naiá¹£karmyasiddhi and the VÃÂrtikas, nor to reject this identification.