with an introduction from N. D. Mehta, who discusses the relative
merits of the several life-histories of Sankara. Govindanatha's
work is refreshingly free from poetic fancies and gives the life-story of Sankara in a connected narrative form. He refers to
Sankara's meeting Visvarupa on the advice of Kumarila and does
not mention the meeting of Sankara with Mandana, the lifelong
Grhastha, nor does he call Visvarupa by the name of Mandana.
Vyasacala refers to the meeting of Sankara with the lifelong Grhastha Mandanamisra on his way to meet Visvarupa on the advice of Kumarila. It is evident that the author of the Guruvarmsakavya knew of Vyasacala's work as the language and mode of treatment in this and other places closely follow Vyasacala. But Vyasacala does not refer to Visvarupa either as Mandana or even as Suresvara.
Earlier to all these and probably the earliest life-story of Sankara that we possess now is Anantanandagiri's Gurudigvijaya or Sankaravijaya, 'if we can place confidence in his statement that Sankara was his (paramaguru) preceptor's preceptor. He states in chapter 55 that Kumarila advised Sankara to engage in disputation his sister's husband (bhagini-bhrata) Mandanamisra (by name), who when convinced of the greatness of Sankara, embraced the Sannyasarama and was placed in charge of the Sringeri Mutt as Suresvara (Chap. 63).
It will thus appear that the references in the Guruvamsakavya are to two different personalities, one, a Mandanamisra who was met by Sankara on his way to Visvarupa and who died as a Grhastha and the other to Visvarupa who became a Sannyasin and was conferred the title of Suresvara by Sankara and who was also known variously as Mandanamisra, Umbeka, Visvarupa and Suresvara.
Of the two Mandanas the one who lived and died as a Grhastha and whom Sankara met first does not lay any claim to literary fame whilst the second Mandana alias Visvarupa is the reputed author of many works in various fields.
From all this it will be clear that the problem is really more complicated than appears at first sight and that the case for setting aside tradition requires much stronger grounds than have been adduced so far.
,
Professor Kuppuswami Sastri's Paper on ’the Mandanamisra-Suresvara Equation’ published in the Annals of the B.O.R., vol.XVIII, Part II (1937) adds nothing to the reference set forth in his Introduction and considered here .
