FOREWORD
In the course of the systematic search for rare and valuable manuscripts by the staff of the Library, a rare manuscript of the Brahmasiddhi was discovered as early as 1920, when Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastri was the Curator. The first instalment of the text was sent to the press as early as 1922. The publication was delayed so long by various circumstances. It is therefore a matter of some satisfaction that the work has at last been published as scholars all over the world have been enquiring after it ceaselessly for some time now.
In his learned introduction Mahamahopadhyaya S.Kuppuswami Sastri discusses at great length the scope and characteristic features of Siddhi Literature (Sec. I), Mandana and his relation to other philosophical writers Ind texts (Sec. 2). Mandana's place in and contribution to the history of Indian philosophy (Sec. 3) and the commentaries on the Brahmasiddhi (Sec. 4).
Our chief aim in writing this Foreword is to focus attention on some of the important issues raised in the learned introduction.
The Siddhi literature forms indeed a noteworthy feature in the history of the development of Advaita philosophy. But the name siddhi as a title to a class of works seems to go back even to early Buddhistic times. Besides Vasubandhu's Vijnaptimatrata- siddhi we are also aware of Dharmakirti's Bahyartha-siddhi and Santanantara-siddhi. Indeed the special name is carried on in Buddhistic works, later than Mandana, as in the Tattva-siddhi by Santaraksita and Jhana-siddhi by Indrabhuti. We have therefore to look in Buddhistic literature rather than in later Advaita manuals, not only for the earliest Siddhi works but also for its subsequent development, if indeed we desire to justify the title Siddi Literature
Regarding the relationship of Mandana and Suresvara Professor S. Kuppuswami Sastri has some very arresting remarks to offer. Tradition has always been consistent and unanimous on the identity of Mandanamisra and Suresvaracarya. When it was discovered that Suresvara went by an earlier name Visvarupacarya, it was accepted without question, with the suggestion that the grhasthasrama name of Suresvara should have been Visvarupacarya also.
The first challenge to this identity came from Prof. Hiriyanna of Mysore, who as early as 1923 drew attention to certain doctrinal divergences between Mandana and Suresvara as also to the Sringeri tradition referred to in the Guruvamsakavya wherein Mandana and Suresvara are referred to as separate individuals
1J.R.A.S. 1923 and 1924.
