On Dates And Works Of Sankaranandana

Author(s): Helmut Krasser
Publisher: Helmut Krasser
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269449/1

Page #1

HELMUT KRASSER, Vienna
ON THE DATES AND WORKS OF SANKARANANDANA
Professor Gnoli was the first and only expert not to date Sankaranandana (in short: S.) on the basis of Tibetan tradition but to use textual sources. He was also the first to consider S.'s conversion from Buddhism to Saivism'. Since almost 40 years have passed since Gnoli's investigations, in the following I should like, on the basis of his results, to take into account more recent material and examine once again S.'s lifetime and the problem of his conversion, as well as to present a list of his works. To begin with, we must clarify the issue of his name - Sankarananda or Sankaranandana.
Frauwallner (1933: 241) already pointed out that the form of the name Sankaranandana', recorded in Vadidevasūri's Syadvádaratnakara? and in Abhinavagupta's Isvarapratyabhijñāvivrtivimarsini', is to be preferred to the alternative 'Sankarananda', found in the secondary literature and also in Tibetan texts. Since the form of the name found in the SVR and in the IPVV is also to be found in the Malinivijayavārtika (see below, n. 58), in the Tan
See below, pp. Afr. 484
rad dha Sankaranandangh I SVR 783.20 see also the references mentioned below pp. Pff and note 14.482
natha hi bhattafankaranandanah ... IPVV I 236,1; tena yad dha bhattacante: menandanah ... IPVV II 16,10, see also below, note 25.
The form Sankartinanda' can be found with variations in transliteration in for instance, Vidyabhūsana 1920: 344, 349: Obermiller 1932: 155: Stcherbatsky 1932: 42.456. 247: Gnoli 1960: xxiiiff: Naudou 1980: 14. 121-127, 180, 229, 231: and Kuijp 1983 (see below, note 35).
CI. for instance the colophon of S.'s Anydpohasiddhi: gian scl be grub.gadge brien dam palmkhas pe chen po som ka rånandas mdzad pa rdzogs soll AAS 302a7. Likewise the colophon of the Sambandhapariksanusara reads: "brel brtar ba'i 'erel ug bram som kan nandas marad pa rdrogs so II SPA 35a3. In addition there are the alternatives Sarkananda Sam kar nanta (see below, note 30), and San kar nanta (see below, note 31).
In the Tibetan translation of the name, bDe byed dga' ba, dga' ba can translate both ananda and nandana: see Frauwallner 1933: 241.
489

Page #2

tralokaviveka, in the Dravyalarikaratika' and in the colophon of Ś's išvardpakaranasanksepa", in other words since the form 'Sankaranandana' is the only form in all the Sanskrit sources, preference must be given to it.
In addition to the Tibetan translation of his name, bDe byed dga' ba, S. is often referred to as Bram ze or Bram ze chen po, the (great) Brahmin.
WORKS
7. Pratibandhasiddhikarika
Commentary on Pratibandhasiddhikarika 8. Laghupratibandhasiddhikarika 9. Isvarapakaranakarika
Commentary on Isvarapakaranakarika 10. Sanksipteśvarapakaranakarika
Isvarapakaranasanksepa (Commentary on Sanksipreśvarapakara
nakarika: includes the karikas) II. Commentary on Dharmakirti's Vadanyaya 12. Sambandhapariksanusāra (Commentary on Dharmakirti's Sam
bandhapariksa) 13. Pramdnavdrttikatika (incomplete commentary on Dharmakirti's
PV I and PVSV up to k. 130) 14. Sarvajñasiddhikarika
Commentary on Sarvajñasiddhikarika 15. Svalpasarvajñasiddhikarika
Commentary on Svalpasarvajñasiddhikarika 16. Agamasiddhikarikā
Commentary on Agamasiddhikärika
Si's works are described in Bühnemann 1980, in Much 1988: 16, 21, 27f and, in most detail, in Steinkellner and Much 1995: 80-84, who also take into account the previous findings on S. and his writings. For this reason, we can limit ourselves here to a list of his works and a few comments and additions. The sequence reflects the relative chronology as shown in the Table on (p. 508), whereby I assume that the commentaries were written at the same time as the basic texts. For reasons of clarity. I have listed together below larger (brhar) and smaller (sūksma) works that belong together, although their chronological classification is by no means certain. Although the kärikäs of his misraka works have also survived separately, I treat these texts as one work, since as yet there is no indication that S. wrote the basic texts and the corresponding commentaries separately. It should be noted beforehand that the works of which only the kärikas have survived may also have been misraka texts. However, there can be no final certainty on this point until these are found or new fragments discovered: 1. Prajñalankärakarika
Commentary on Prajñalankarakarika 2. Dharmalankarakarika
Commentary on Dharmálankarakarika 3. Brhatprāmänyakärikä 4. Madhyapramanyakärika 5. Saksmaprāmányakärikā 6. Anyāpohasiddhikarika
Commentary on Anydpohasiddhikarika
This list includes a further four in addition to the 22 works enumerated to in Steinkellner and Much (1995: 80):
I. Commentary on Prajñalarkarakārika 2. Commentary on Dharmalankarakarika 7. Commentary on Pratibandhasiddhikarika II. Commentary on Dharmakirti's Vadaryd ya
On 1.) From the Prajñalankāra, prose quotations have survived that could only come from the commentary to Prajndlankarakärika: yat praindlamkarah
praroho 'syah samvidah pafiyastvam sa eva samskaro wacya iti IPVVI 234,121"
sukaranandang-sadyojyotir devabala-kanabhuigdimalam ....TĀV Vol. IV 1884.5
ankaranandanes in the Dravydlankaratika 2nd chapter fol. 112 - Jambüvijaya 1981: 137. jankaranandanas tv dha Dravydlankaratika Ied chapter fol. 79 = Jambūvijaya 1981: 143
Hardikaranasan sa sampurnah krtir bhaagankaranandanasve, IAS. 8.11.
The two works mentioned separately in Steinkellner and Much (1995: 80) 17. Kom mentar zur Sanksiptesvarapakaranakärikā" and "18. Isvarapakaranasanksepa" are no doubt a single work, if we do not wish to assume that s wrote two Commentaries on the Sanksipevandpakaranakarika.
10 The larger number of works in Steinkellner and Much is a result of their counting karikas and Commentaries separately.
* Cr. Gnoli 1960: xxiiif: Bühnemann 1980: 196
490
491

Page #3

vad uktam prajñālamkare -
evam tarhi jagad ekasyaiva kasyacid anamıśasya yathoktavidhinā rūpam astu kim naḥ kṣiyate TAV II 406, 8-1012
On 2.) Alongside the quotations from the Dharmälankärakärikä mentioned in Bühnemann (1980: 194), Jayaratha's commentary Tantralokaviveka on Abhinavagupta's Tantraloka contains two more quotations in prose: yad dharmalamkarah
tatra samarthyam hi tasya janakatvam, tac ca yadi tasmin sati na bhavati katham nama tatsämarthyam, atha bhavati katham samarthyam syad iti TAV IV 1652,2-5
yad dharmālamkarah
tad evam ayam vastusvabhāva eva kāryakāraṇabhāvaḥ, na tu vyavahāramätrasiddhir iti TĀV IV 1654,17-1655,3
Likewise, in the SVR Vadidevasūri adds to a stanza13 quoted from the Dharmälankärakärikä a further explanation concluded by iti, which we can without doubt regard as a commentary by S. to his kärikäs. The text is preceded by a refutation in which Vädidevasüri shows that the fact of being caused is not a conclusive logical reason for the transience of things (... ity anaikantikam eva kṛtakatvam iti SVR 787,11f). He then continues that this also refutes what was said in the previously (SVR 783,21f) mentioned karika by $14. The text now reads15:
yad api sankaranandana eva vyakaroti -
na hi svahetujo našo nāšinām naśvarāmatā |
näsäyaiṣām bhavantas te bhutvaiva na bhavanti tat || nasinăm naśvarātmataiva nāsārthah, na tu vindahetujo vina sonaśärthaḥ. tato yatha bhavaviseṣaḥ svahetor ghatatmako bhavan ghata eva bhavati, ghatajanakad bhävad aghaṭātmatāyā asambhavät, tatha vinaśvaro bhavan vinaśvara eva bhavati, bhūtvaiva samanantaram nāśāt. nanyatha naśvaraḥ syat. naśvarätmatayatmaläbhasamanantaranāsitaiva kṣaṇikatvam iti. [tatrocyate ...] SVR 787,13-21
Cf. Gnoli 1960: xxiiif3 and xxv3; by Bühnemann 1980: 196 identified in Ms 22a5-6. Identified in Bühnemann 1980: 194. The following prose was not interpreted as being S.'s declaration.
elena tankaranandanokiakärikāyām yad ("kāyām yad conj. "kām yavad) uktam apāstam SVR 787,12. The text cannot be construed without correction.
15 On the translation, see above, p-101
492
below, p. 503.
On 7.) According to Bu ston's Chos 'byun rNog lotsaba Blo Idan ses rab (1059-1109) wrote a summary (bsdus don) not only of S.'s Anyapohasiddhi but also of his Pratibandhasiddhi. Since it cannot be assumed that rNog lotsāba summarised the 22 kärikäs of the Pratibandhasiddhi - Ś. already presents a summary of these in the Laghupraibandhasiddhikarika - we can assume that Ś. wrote a commentary both to the Anyapohasiddhikarika and to the Pratibandhasiddhi, which forms the basis for rNog lotsäba's summary.
On II.) See below, note 36.
According to Bühnemann (1980: 192) the Pratibandhasiddhikarikā occupies the position of fol. 1b1-2al in the manuscript of the Bihar Research Society, Patna. In this, when counting the folios, wherever the folio reference is illegible she has used the sequence in the photos made by Rähula Sänkṛtyayana. Each photo shows 5 or more folio pages, recto or verso, in ascending sequence one beneath the other. Sänkṛtyäyana exchanged folio pages 2a and 2b, so that the sequence on the first photo is Ib2a3b→ 4b5b, and in the second photo 2b3a 4a5a6a. Consequently, the correct folio reference for the Pratibandhasiddhikarika is Ibl-2b1. The manuscript also contains a numeric reference, which is, however, illegible. According to the Tibetan translation, there are 22 stanzas.
Accordingly, the folio references of the two following works in the manuscript must be changed. The Laghupratibandhasiddhikarika, which directly follows the Pratibandhasiddhikarika, does not start from 2a1-2a5, but from 2b1-2b5, and the Sükṣmapramäṇyakärikä does not begin in 2a5. but in 2b5. The numeric reference for the Sükṣmapramäṇyakärikä in the manuscript is 10.
Consequently, the entry for the first three works mentioned in Bühnemann (1980: 192) should read17:
Title
1. Pratibandhasiddhikärikä (PSK) (= P 5755) 2. Laghupratibandhasiddhikärikä (LPSK)
3. Sükṣmaprāmānyakärikä (SPK)
Numeric reference in the manuscript
22 (2) 8
10
Folio
Ibl-2b1
2b1-2b5
2b5-3a5
16 See Jackson 1987: 127 (references on p. 1473).
The details in Steinkellner and Much 1995: 80 must also be corrected accordingly.
493

Page #4

TIME OF ACTIVITY
In his introduction to the text edition of Dharmakirti's Pramāna vārtikasvavrtti, Raniero Gnoli corrected the lifetime of S. claimed by Vidyabhūşana and Stcherbatsky as being about 1050 AD." and "Xh century A. D."" to "9th or 10th century . In justification of this subsequently generally accepted dating. Gnoli notes that $. is frequently quoted by Abhinavagupta (950-ca.1020) and that he, according to Abhinavagupta, refuted Dharmottara (740-800)", and thus must have been active between these two. In addition, Gnoli refers to a legend handed down by Taranātha and dPag bsam ljon bzan, according to which S., as he was about to write a refutation of Dharmakirti's pramana theories, received a vision of Manjusri in a dream, who convinced him that Dharmakirti's views were correct. As a result, S. did not write a criticism but rather a commentary on Dharmakirti's Svavrtti. From this, and from the fact that S. is quoted with copious praise by Abhinavagupta and, on the other hand, wrote works obviously based on Buddhist systematic preconditions, such as his PVTT, Gnoli assumes that s. converted to Saivism. However, while the Tibetan tradition suggests that S. converted to Buddhism, Gnoli is of a different opinion: "Things may well have gone another way, however, and this is suggested by an eulogising epithet that Abhinavagupta gives to Sankarananda, of whom he says that the recovered illumination thanks to the force of asceticism and to a constant exercise of thought on consciousness, owed to the maturation of his good actions carried out earlier." The rendition of pratilabdhon mesa6 by 'he recovered illumination in the sense of a conversion from Buddhism to
Saivism is certainly an overinterpretation, since then the statement 'he recovered illumination would imply that S. had previously already acquired illumination and had lost it by converting to Buddhism or in some other way. However, also Gnoli does not assume this, and there is no other indication that S. acquired illumination more than once, or changed faith more than once. Thus the point referred to by Gnoli cannot be used to clarify the direction of Si's conversion and prarilabdhonmesa is better understood as "he obtained illumination
Another of Gnoli's arguments is that Sankarananda, among various other works of Buddhist nature, wrote at least one that wanders far from Buddhist orthodoxy or that is frankly contrary to the Buddhist logic and gnoseology commonly accepted. This work... is the Prajndlamkara, which obviously is not included in the Tibetan canon. This work is held in high esteem by Abhinavagupta, who constantly gives Sankarananda the title of bhatta and once even of guru, and recognises in him a true precursor of the doctrine of knowledge adopted by his school." Gnoli derives this from the fact that, when introducing a quotation from Si's Prajndlarikara, Abhinavagupta refers to him as one who has acquired
* Vidyābhūşana 1920: 344
Stcherbatsky 1932: 45. ? Gnoli 1960: xxif.
"E.g. Bühnemann 1980, 191, Tsukamoto et al. 1990: 458 and Steinkellner and Much 1995: 80.
On the dating see Krasser 1991. References can be found in Gnoli 1960: xxiiip and xxiv. See the translation of Taranatha by Schiefner 1869: 247
Gnoli 1960: xxvi. The Sanskrit text reproduced by Gnoli in note 2 reads: prikiana Inšalavidkaprovartilasamvipandmaršablydsafapahprobidvapranilabdhonumesena bharfa sankaranandaneadpi... IPvv II 199.16-18. The quotation that follows (siddham siddhara vei ripam niriman na lari fatah) comes from S.'s Prajalankara and is identified in Bühnemann 1980 19
* The basic meaning of inmesa is the opening of the eyes' the opening of the flowers/blossoms. The correlate is nimesa, 'the closing of the eyes' the closing of the
flowers/blossoms. By analogy, the two terms are connected in Saivism with the unfolding and dissolution of the empirical world. In the first stanza of Vasugupta's Spandakärika the unfolding and dissolution of the world follow the opening and closing of the eyes of the highest godhead: "We laud that Sankara, who is the source of the power of the wheel of the cnergies, by whose opening and closing of the eyes there is the appearance and dissolution of the world: yasyonmejanimes blydm jagatah pralayodayaw" (Padoux 1992: 250) According to Abhinavagupta's Pardtrimsikvivarana mesa is the state in which, when Siva's power of perception unfolds, all objects desired by him have unfolded (see Padout 1992: 251 and note 75: "PTV, p. 168: unmisanti tu jildnasaktir isyamanasakalabhavon mesamayi u it."). In addition, he equates unmesa with the highest level of consciousness (samvid), of which he says: "This consciousness which the Agamas celebrate under the name of insight (pratibhd), unfolding (mese), and so forth, abides in the interval between two dualistic cognitions, when one ceases and the other appears. It is undifferentiated for devoid of thought-construct avikalpakam). It precedes as such all differentiated thought construct such as the notion of blue, and so forth, which are mutually exclusive since linked 16 duality). As such it is inseparable from the infinite diversity of appearances constituting the world). That there is such an interval between two cognitions cannot be denied, because Icognitions cannot but be different, and this interval is made of pure consciousness. ..." (Padoux 1992: 1817 and 182" bhavati cedam astamisodesvadbhavavikalpajridnántaralavarty wamesapratibhadisabda gamagitan nirvikalpakan sesamvadaviruddin bhimdtanilddivikalpapirvabhdvil tasandi tad anandabhdadvibhagavam evetil abhayos ca jñanayor antarālam anapahaniyam júnavar bhedad evallacca samvidoma kam eva...).
?? Gnoli 1960: xxiv.
494
495

Page #5

illumination. Since Abhinavagupta himself quotes a stanza from the Prajalankára in his Tantraloka, and interprets this as Buddhist doctrine (uktam ca ... iti saugataih: see below (p. 504 and note 59]), it is difficult to interpret the Prajalarikára as a work that is entirely Saivite and opposed to Buddhist doctrine
On the other hand, the notion of an abandonment of Saivism and a move towards Buddhism is supported by the fact that S. plays a very inajor role in Tibetan tradition. This is reported not only by the legends passed on by Taranātha and others, but also follows from statements in the texts by
See above, note 25
See also Gnoli's own comment on the reference quoted from his introduction to PVSV: "The scanty fragments of this work hardly permit us to get an idea of its content." Gnoli 1960: Axiv)
A further hagiography to which Kuijp (1994a: 381") refers survives in Glo bo mkhan chen:
dili/abide bred delul glum nil the che gran er den po doe med du ma slegs kyi prindi la chen po brun saukunanda (Allum kur mun (BD) Ses bya ba blo gros phan sum shogs i dan dan pu brun stel de vun dod par la sred pas chant
Tshion (B) : Ishon (Alma (Algoig 1B)) dawl wid yngsti i de' gnas su van van gro besig vod pa del de' nan padge bien goig (B): cis (AD) kyuri de'i sar
gro ba na I de idpe sans rgvas bcom Idan das la shans na dan ubac plus la sogs pa laskuad par du wars ar brod palmthe bun erub vies mdud pa yod pa de las nas I de sankanandas ((A): son kar man is (B]) mihon la de'i don bden par rtogs nas sans rgyas la sin tu dad de Ibram serams kyis ([B]: kw (Al) gus pur byu ba'i shans skud kyis dge 'dun gyi mchil Ihwam [A]: tham (B) 'gel ba'i srad bu byas nas sans rgias kwi stan pa laugs le I de nas rlog ge([A]: ge (B1) shod ma' bstan bcos kyan brisams [B] : brisam (Al) par bied de l... Khas 'jug roam bsad [A] 342.1-5 = [B] 507,3-508,2 The legend about him (ie. Sankaranandana) is as follows: In the big Kashmiri town of Anupamamahapura' lived a great heretical scholar, a Brahmin by the name of Sarkananda, whose intellect was excellent. Since he craved (sred pa) love (dod pa), he took pleasure (yid gaugs) in a spirits vendor (chart ishonma). He visited her again and again in her house (gros). When also a Buddhist Uplisaka of that (town) came to her place (de" sar) he left (las (pa = lus pal) his book (called Višeşastava (Khyad par due
phags)] there, which praised Buddha as particularly exulted phags pa) over Brahman and Isvara and which was written by Udbhatasiddhasvamin (mTho bisun grub rje). When Sankananda then saw that book] and recognised its contents (don) as truche conceived an extremely devout trust in Buddha. After he had made a line (srad bu) of the Brahmin string shans skad) highly revered by the Brahmins for hanging up
gel bu) the monk's (dge cu sandals (mchil Nrwam), he entered the Buddhist doctrine. Thereupon he also wrote promanasástras. [Thus it is said (ted).
Following this point. Glo ho mkhan chen reports a similar story as transmitted by Taranátha, according to which S. was p aded by Manjusrisce above, note 24).
the Tibetan authors themselves. As one of many instances originating from no less than Sa skya Pandita Kun dga' rgyal mtshan (1182-1251), the following extract from his commentary on Tshad ma rigs pa'i gler should be sufficient to illustrate this point. The explanations and translation are from Kuijp (1983: 5f):
The case in point is a passage that occurs in the ninth chapter where Sa-skya Pandita submits immediate referential awareness (vid-ky mngon-sunn, manasapratyaksa) to a fairly detailed analysis. Having given a survey of the opinions of Prajñākaragupta and Dharmottara, he closes his preliminary discussion by attributing a view to Sankarananda (ca. 1000?) on the basis of oral transmission; in his words: "Only this, the intent of Sankarānanda which was obtained from our abbot, I perceive as correct "31 The 'abbot' of course refers to the Kashmiri Säkyaśrībhadra (1127. 1225) who functioned as the abbot (mkhan-po) when Sa-skya Pandita was ordained as monk in 1208....2
Si's important position in the Tibetan epistemological tradition also follows from the fact that Sa skya Pandita followed him in the line of transmission of the Pramanavar rika interpretation. Several texts report that Si's pupil, whose name has been handed down as 'Vagindra Pandita 'Vangu Pandita' or 'Panchen Mewangu' was the teacher of the influential Śäkyaśrībhadra", who in turn was Sa skya Pandita's teacher. In addition, according to Go ram pa bSod nams sen ge. Sa skya Pandita is said to have been involved in the translation of Si's Pramanavarttikatika, the translators
"On Anupamamahapura, also known as Anupamapura and Kašmirapura. see Naudou 1980: 208.
The text has been recently published: Johannes Schneider. Der Lobpreis der Vorzaglichkeit des Buddha. Udbhatasiddhasvamins Visesastava mil Prajridvarmans Kommentar Bonn 1993
Kuijp 1983: 258 quotes the following text: "See the TMRGRG fol. 110./4: shang. kar-nan-lui dgongs.pa kho-bo khanpo-las nuved-pa di kho na podpor ahorg
no ir
Jam dbyans biad pa's summary of Si's view on munasaproroksa is translated in Sicherbatsky 1930:324. On Jam dbyans bad pa's analysis thereof, see Stcherbatsky 19.30 327-330.
On a biography of Sakyasribhadra, see Jackson 1990 and the detailed discussion thereof in Kuijp 1994
Ct. Kuijp 1983:6 and 251"also Mejor 1991 176 (where the man reads "Waltku. Pandita
196
197

Page #6

of which are not mentioned in bsTan 'gyur 35. Likewise, he is alleged to have translated a commentary written by S. on Dharmakirti's Vädanyaya, which, however, has survived neither in the original nor in translation
These reasons are without doubt sufficient to establish S.'s significance for the Tibetan tradition. It is therefore clear that S. was not only according to legend fully integrated in the tradition, but was also thus in practice, and was regarded by Sa skya Pandita and other Tibetans as one of their own. For there can be no doubt that Sa skya Pandita would not have adopted the doctrines of a predecessor who himself dismissed these doctrines as false. A further indication that Ś. irrevocably turned his back on Saivism can be seen in the bitterness expressed in the final stanza of his IAS:
What could one experienced in the countless (viparyasu), widely disseminated (prarüḍhasu) [and] immeasurable doctrines (drstisu). even if he is well prepared (prayato 'pi), do for a world of little understanding 37?
That S. is referring to himself as experienced in countless, widely disseminated and immeasurable doctrines indicates that he had already pursued a career with a variety of doctrinal traditions and was at an advanced age.
A further indication can be found in the Tibetan colophon to his Pratibandhasiddhikarika. This colophon may be a translation of an addition marked in the margin of the Sanskrit manuscript. The addition is made to the first word in line 1 of fol. 2b38 (siddhikärikäs II), and indicated by the writer as belonging to the latter by means of a kakapada, a small apostrophe above the two dandas. The text, which is inserted above the
35 See Kuijp 1983: 104: "He [-Sa-skya Pandita] also embarked on the translation of the Pramanavarttikatika by Sankarananda in which he collaborated with Samgharibhadra, a member of Sakyasri's entourage." The relevant text, to which van der Kuijp. p. 303292 refers, reads:... bram ze'i 'grel ba dan beas pa gsan nas bsgyur I (Go ram pa bSod nams sen ge, Tshad ma rigs pa'i gter gyi dka' ba'i gnas rnam par biad pa sde bdun rab gsal, in The Complete Works of Go ram bSod nams seng ge, compiled by bSod nams rgya mtsho. The Complete Works of the Great Masters of the Sa skya Sect of the Tibetan Buddhism 12] Tokyo 1969: fol. 5b4).
36 Cf. Jackson 1987: 113 and Much 1991. Part 1, p. xxvii24
3 viparydsu prarüḍhāsu kim apárásu drşişu 1 jagaty alpamatau kuryat prayato 'pi visäradaḥ 11 10 11 IAS 7.19f. A critical edition together with a translation is in pre
paration.
J8The Pratibandhasiddhikarika starts in the manuscript from fol. 1b1-2bl; cf. above, tp-4924 p. 493.
498
line in a script smaller than that of the manuscript and extends beyond the end of the line, is illegible due to the poor quality of the photograph. but probably corresponds roughly in length with the Tibetan translation. This colophon states inter alia that Ś. highly appreciated the doctrines of the Sugata:
'brel pa grub pa slob dpon mkhas pa chen po bram ze'i rigs su sku "khruns pa chos kvi grag pa gñis pa tes 'jig rien na gram (D: gtan Q) du grags sin rtog ge pa phal pa'i gźun jig pa dan II thogs pa med pa don gyi de kho na rnam par 'jog (Q: 'jig D) pa'i blo'i mthu stobs kyis (Q: kyi D) 'gran zla dan bral pa II bde bar gśegs pa'i bstan pa la gces spras (D: spas Q) su 'dzin pas legs par bśad pa'i ro myan ba la sems rtse (rtse D; lacks Q) gcig tu gźol ba dge bsñen dam pa sanka rä nandas (Q: samka ränan das D) mdzad pa rdzogs so Il PrSi D 303a5-7 =Q 326a6-8.
The Pratibandhasiddhi written by the teacher (slob dpon, *äcārya), the great scholar (mkhas pa chen po, *mahäpaṇḍita), the honourable (dam pa) Upāsaka Šankarānanda has been completed. [Namely by the teacher Sankarananda], born to the Brahmin caste (and) celebrated by the people ('jig rten na gtam du) as a "second Dharmakirti", who destroyed the doctrines (gun) of the ordinary logicians, who is invincible ('gran zla med pa, *asapatna) thanks to his unmatched (thogs pa med pa) spirit, which recognises how things really are (don gyi de kho na. *arthatattva), and who, since he highly appreciates (gces spras su 'dzin pa) the teachings of the Sugata, persists with his spirit (sems) in concentration on the enjoyment (ro myari ba, *äsvada) of [his] exquisite utterances.
That the author of the colophon felt it necessary to add extra emphasis to the circumstance that Ś. was born to a Brahmin family and highly appreciated the teachings of the Buddha etc., can only be explained by the fact that as one born to a Brahmin family and educated in the Šaiva tradition, he flirted with the Buddhist doctrines. For there would be no particular need to mention that someone who had always been a Buddhist appreciated the teachings of Buddha.
It follows from the arguments put forward that S. was first a Śaiva, and had appreciated Buddhist teachings from the very beginning, and that he later abandoned Saivism, for there must have been a breach with Saivism. since the teaching of the non-existence of God contained in the Isvarāpākaraṇakärikä together with its commentary, in the Isvarapakaraṇa
499.

Page #7

sankṣepa and in the Pramāṇavärttikaṭīkā39 is incompatible with Saivism. From this it then follows that it was only after the completion of Abhinavagupta's IPVV, which according to an oral communication by Prof. Raffaele Torella (November 18, 1994) was probably his last philosophical work, and which gives the year 1014/15 in the colophon as the time of completion, that he must have made the break with Šaivism, and written a number of works setting out his Buddhist point of view. It cannot be stated with certainty which of his works are to be located in the period after his renunciation of Saivism. For, as the example of the Anyapohasiddhi shows, neither the title nor the fact that a work was translated into Tibetan are conclusive criteria for determining the time of writing. Nevertheless, his works refuting the proof of God and his Pramanavārttikaṭīkā can certainly be placed in the time after the completion of the IPVV as can probably be his commentary on Dharmakirti's Sam
39 Cf. S.'s explanation of arthanartha' (PVSV 1,8); don ni don dam par yod pa'i no bo'o Il don ma yin pa ni de las bzlog pa ste I gzugs la sogs pa kun rdzob tu yod pa'am I giso bo dan dban phyug dan ri bon gi rwa la sogs pa med pa ñid do II PVTT 4a5f="artha is the absolutely really existing thing. Anartha is what is different from that. It is either the conventionally existing such as material (ripa) or it is something completely (*eva) nonexisting such as primordial matter (*pradhana). God (*isvara) or a hare's horn." In addition: 'gro ba mtha' dag byed pa po'i dban phyug gcig ni mi srid do II PVTI 95b6= "... a unique God, who is the creator of all being, is not possible."
The identification of artha and anartha with paramartha and samvṛti was already known to Karnakagomin, who considered this interpretation as the last of six possibilities: yadvärthaḥ paramarthasaryam anarthaḥ samvṛtisatyam ... (PVSVT 7,276). The various possibilities of interpretation are dealt with in the translation of the logical sections in Dharmakirti's PVSV, prepared by Ernst Steinkellner (note on artha and anartha).
In any event the IPVV is the last of the works containing references to S.; these include also the Tantraloka and the Malinlvijayavärttika (see Gnoli 1960: xxiiif3: Bühnemann 1980). For the Isvarapratyabhijñāvimarsini contains a reference to the Tantraloka (yathokte mayeva... tantraloke IPVV 1 33,23), while the latter knows the Mālinīvijayavärttika (... malinislokavärttike TA 37th chapter k. 30 in TAV VIII 3691,17: Pandey 1963: 30 refers to this passage).
40
*The Tantraloka contains no direct references to S., but for instance TA. 2nd chapter. k. 54, according to Jayaratha's Commentary, presupposes statements of the Prajñālan
kärakärikä:
nijadharmaprahanena pararüpanukărită
pratibimbatmată sokta khangadarśataládovar ||
iti prajñālamkarakärikärthagarbhikarena lakṣaṇam āha [... k. 54] TĀV II 414,13-15 (cf. Gnoli 1960: xxiif: Bühnemann 1980: 196).
500
bandhaparikṣā and Vadanyaya". The last three were translated into Tibetan, although the Commentary to the Vädanyaya, as already mentioned, has not survived. Of the other two works available in Tibetan translation, the Anyapohasiddhi must be assigned to the period before Abhinavagupta's IPVV, since the latter cites it. The same applies to the placing of the Pratibandhasiddhikarikā, if we follow the above-mentioned (p. 8) colophon. Likewise, the Laghupratibandhasiddhikarika is also probably to be assigned to this period. With the exception of the Bṛhatprämäṇyaparikṣa and the Prajñālankārakārikā, both quoted by Abhinavagupta2, and the Dharmalankärakärikä and commentary, which according to Jayaratha's commentary Tantralokaviveka is presupposed by Abhinavagupta in his Tantraloka13, his other known works cannot be ascribed to either of the two periods.
A further fact that must be taken into account when narrowing down S.'s period of activity is that according to the testimony of Abhinavagupta, Utpaladeva, in his Isvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti, criticises a statement made by S. The reference in the IPVV, the source of which is not identified++, reads: yad aha bhattah
kāryaucityāt prāk svasamvidasamvitsmaraṇäntare
iti | etan na sahate tadetad iti IPVV II 369,12-1445
The relative chronology of the works of Utpaladeva, Abhinavagupta and Ś. determined in the above discussion is set out in the Table on p. 15 for greater clarity. Concerning S.'s period of activity, it follows that at least one of his works must have been written before Utpaladeva's Isvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti, and that several were written after Abhinavagupta's IPVV (completed in 1014/15). The year in which the Isvarapratyabhijñāvivṛti was written is not known. However, it is certainly a late work by Utpaladeva. whose dates are given as 900/25-950/7546. According to Torella (1994:
4 His commentaries on these works by Dharmakirti cannot be ascribed with certainty since S. could have written these before his final break with Saivism. For the Anyapohasiddhi is also a Buddhist work. In addition, other cases are known in which nonBuddhists have written commentaries to Buddhist works (see Funayama 1994: 372f).
42 See Gnoli 1960: xxiiif' and Bühnemann 1980: 1936.
43Cf. below, note 60:... yad dharmalamkarah... ity asankhyaha...
44 Since the earliest of $.'s works quoted by Abhinavagupta is the Prajñdlankārakārikā, this must also be assumed to be the source of the passage against which the Utpaladeva is directed. However, the quotation cannot be identified in the manuscript of the Prajñālankára as a result of illegibility.
45 See Gnoli 1960: xxiiif' and Bühnemann 1980: 197. 46 Torella 1994: xx.
501

Page #8

xli). Utpaladeva wrote the Isvarapratyabhijndkarika and the Vitti at the same time, and then wrote the Vivrti or Tika on both of these later". A considerable period of time must have passed between the writing of the first two works and the Vivrti, for "In the tika, that was composed later on, we already find multiple interpretations of the same stanza, all considered equally possible but evidently being the outcome of further reflections" (Torella 1994: xlii). If we assume the later dates for Utpaladeva, i.e. 925-975, and assume that the work presupposed by the Isvarapratyabhijñāvivrti was a work from S.'s youth, we arrive at a period of activity of approx. 970-1020/30. I should therefore like to propose as a working hypothesis a lifetime of approx. 940/50-1020/30*
according to Abhinavagupta in the Prajídlankara and other works not mentioned by name, he adopted a position similar to that of Vasubandhu and Dignaga with respect to the reality of the external world. That the Dhandlarikára also contains Buddhist ideas is shown by the reference quoted from the SVR, where S., like Dharmakirti, argues that things are transient by virtue of their nature and that their transience is not due to causes:
For the perishing of transient things does not arise from a cause. For their perishing, they are of a transient nature. If they are, they are no more as soon as they come into existence. That (is momentariness). The meaning of 'perishing' is only that transient things are of a transient nature. It is not, however, the meaning of 'perishing that perishing arises from a cause for the perishing. Just as a particular thing, if it arises as having the nature of a pot from its cause, is simply a pot, since the (characteristic) of not being of the nature of a pot is not possible from a thing that creates a pot, likewise, something that arises as transient is simply transient, since immediately after its arising it perishes Otherwise it would not be transient. It is precisely this perishing immediately after coming into existence (atmalabha) as of a transient nature that is momentariness.
From the data obtained so far, it follows that $. must have been very strongly under Buddhist influence even in his youth. Thus in the Anyd. pohasiddhi he dedicated the introductory stanza of reverence to the allknowing", and that in the Pratibandhasiddhi to the Sugata. In addition to the sloka of reverence of the latter, he refers to the Sugata (bde bar gśegs pa) as one who has eliminated either the matter (don) or the misery (nan) of the heretics (nu stegs can)". And Gnoli (1960: xxv) already pointed out that
In the Brhatprämányakarikas cited by Abhinavagupta, S. also attests reverence to the Buddha
This however means that all S.'s works cited by or preceding Abhinavagupta already contain strong Buddhist tendencies or exclusively Buddhist ideas, and that Abhinavagupta did not know any purely Saivite works by him to which he could have referred in his writings. That he nevertheless mentions S. with such praise (see above, p. 494 with note 25).
"Cf. also Torella 1988: 137-142
48 The Tibetan tradition according to which Ś's pupil 'Vagindra Pandita', 'Vangu Pandita' or 'Pan chen Mewangu' (see above, Ip 11) was the teacher of Sakyasribhadra, agrees neither with Gooli's carlier dating nor with that proposed here. It is assumed that Sakyasribhadra lived from 1127 or approx. 1140 to 1225 (see Jackson 1990: Introd. p. I and 18'). Even according to S.'s later dating. "Vagindra Pandita' would have had to have lived from approx. 1000 to 1140/60. Perhaps the different names also conceal two different persons, which may have given rise to the confusion of the names (for another possible explanation cf. Kuijp 1983: 2132).
"kun mkhyen "khrul bral dus gsum gnas pa yi Il don nams ji bin gzigs pa la brud de ll AAS 281a6f="I bow before the all knowing, before the one free of error, the one who sees things in all three times as they really are." That S. was referring to Buddha and not Siva with the word "all-knowing is shown by the fact that he also uses this epithet in his Sambandhapariksdasdra (kun mkhyen de la phyag 'Ishallo Il SPA 2165)
So bde bar gsegs pa de la... phyag "shallo il Prsi D 30262 = "Reverence to the Sugata".
51 Since I do not entirely understand the stanza of reverence, I shall not attempt to translate it. The passage to which I refer, maslegs can don/rian bsal bas, reads don in the Peking cdition and an in the Derge edition, with both alternatives being possible:
de nid ses shadon des monsum mtshan la de lam rjes tugs kyis Ilmu slegs can don (don Qran D) bsal bas rgyal phyir gan gi rgyalnia rgyal chennam II dam pa'i ishal Sags brjod po i bdag 'di gnod med res par rab bsgrogs pa Il bde bar gsegs pa de la rag luitse geig blos ni phryag 'shal lo ll Prsi Q 325a8-32552 D 30251-2
52 Gnoli refers to IPvy [ 144.11-13: dlambangpariksddan dairinage viiratimdird. disiddhas daubandhand (conj: siddhdudsabandhandm), aralamkaradise bharta darsanesu tafra tatra cdnyatra vitarydym artha akta iti
53 On the Sanskrit text, see above 4 :4 2
Se di cannot be construed within the stanza. Perhaps it should be read with the following stanza. According to the final sentence in the commentary, it could mean momentariness.
55 Cf. vol punak pramanyapariksvai bhalleng wktam
yokia praksah sudrthrtham samskdroprotibodhakah!
nanyathid sydd vikalpe 'pi tapraviti opisyarām 11 iti IPVV II 221.4-7 (see Gnoli 1960: xxii, identified in Bühnemann 1980: 193 in manuscript Sbl (she also indicates textual alternatives]).
58 buddham... prananya... Ms 4all
503

Page #9

can in my opinion only be explained by the fact that the two were contemporaries who knew cach other, and that S. was integrated as a respected personality in the Saivite community in Kashmir. It is also probably due to Si's influence that Abhinavagupta integrated Dharmakirti's logic, as far as compatible with his system, in his IPVV.
It remains to be noted that S.'s ambivalent relationship to Saivism from the very beginning is also reflected in Abhinavagupta's works. In the MVV he refers to him by name and calls him a guru in the introduction to a quotation from the Prajñalankara. In contrast, be no longer mentions him by name in the Tantraloka, but quotes a stanza from the Prajfalankara and expressly refers to the opinion it contains as Buddhist: ukiam ca... iti saugatairs. The IPVV, as already noted (see above, p 5) with note 25). p.494 speaks very highly of S. In his Tantralokaviveka, Jayaratha also clearly reveals that S. wrote Buddhist works as a Saiva. According to Jayaratha, TĀ IX k. Il presupposes a Buddhist objection in which the Buddhist refers to a section in Si's Dharmalarkana to reinforce his own positions.
However, this is only possible if S. is a Saiva. For a reference to a Buddhist is hardly likely to be of much effect in a dispute with a Saiva. However, in the same context of discussion, Jayaratha presents S. as a Buddhist when he says that the Buddhist would, under certain circumstances, undermine his own tenets (svasiddhanta), relying for this tenet on a quotation from Si's Dharmálankára
Thus in summary it can be said that Sankaranandana originated from a Kashmiri Brahmin family, lived in Anupamamahapura and grew up in the Saiva tradition. However, from the very beginning he was attracted not only by the Saiva tradition but also, as an Upasaka, to a great extent by the Buddhist tradition. After Abhinavagupta's IPVV (completed in 1014/15) he abandoned Saivism entirely and wrote a number of further works in which he denies the existence of God. From this, and from the fact that one of his works was already known to Utpaladeva, we can conclude a period of activity from approx. 970–1020/30 and a lifetime from approx. 940/50–1020/30.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Texts
AAS
LAS.
Anyápohasiddhi (Sankaranandana): Derge Tshad ma Vol. 17, No. 4256, 281a6-302b1. Isvarapakaranasariksepa (Sankaranandana): Manuscript of the Library of the Benares Hindu University: S. No. 3E/2700. Acc. No. C493. Isvarapratyabhijridvirtivimarsini: The Isvarapratyabhijnd Vivrikivimarsini by Abhinavagupta, edited by Madhusudan
ΠΡνν
According to the hagiography recorded in Glo bo mkhan chen, S. was born in the Kashmin town of Anupamamahapura, cf. above, note 30.
Ss. Kahdella guruh sankaranandanahna mánarvot lalo 'nyutan na bidhad asthiteh sthitih II MVVI 431
** TA chapter III k.SS. akram co-soti Mhrye 'pi dhir ekdnekawedandt anekasadrsäkárd na Ivaneketi Sauce , Jayaratha comments: wktam in prilamkanddau, tad aktam latre
lamde saty api dyerte dhir ekonekavedanát I anekasadrlalardndnekarva (PAK. TAV II:ndnekeve TAV III) prasajatellite TAV II 416,6-9.
Gnoli 1960: xxiif refers to the passage, identified in Bühnemann 1980: 196 in manuscript PAK 22a5-6. The stanza from PAK is also quoted in TAV III 1308.4-5 with the introduction yaddhah.
60 nanu... IN sthita eva Dijankurddau bidve bhdvåtmi karyakaranabhava iti yad dharmálamkarah
bhava eva" parasyeha karyabhava... " iti. svablid vo janakorthanam abhakarabhavakah *
iti cu ne ca svabhdam srjya bhdvdndm artyar kimcid apeksaniyam ini kim atra cetanapravesanenely dsakyaha ... [followed by TA IX kIIJ TÁV IV 1648,13-1649,6 = "Buddhis:) ... Hence it is certain that with things (bhdwa) such as seed and shoot there is the fact of an effect and a cause, that is in the nature of these things. As (yad) the Dharmálankara says:
"Only the being (bhava) of the later is here in this case in our system) the being lof this later that exists in being the effect'
And noching else should be taken into account while abandoning the nature of the things. Why in such a case do we need to seek for a conscious being celana) (namely God as author]? Fearing this Abhinavagupta) says..."
• The quotations are identified in Bühnemann 1980: 194 in DAK Ms 1464 and 1466.
eva TAV: evd DAKeva ca to be complemented with DAK
61 vyavad ramderasiddharve va tasya karyakranabhdvo pi evant sydd ini svasiddhantabhargah-karyakranabhdvas yavastusvabhävetvendbhyupo gamdr, ya dharulamalı
tad evam ayar vastusvabhdva eva karyakaranabhdvo na tu vyavahdramdirasiddhah
inTĀV IV 1654,15-1655,3 "Or if this being previous etc.) is only proven according to everyday use, then the being an effect and cause is also thus. (And this would be the ruin of your own teaching, because you assume the being an effect and cause to be the nature of the thing. As (yad) the Dharma ankara (teaches:
Thus in this way the being an effect and cause is indeed the nature of the things. it is not merely proved according to everyday use".
and
The creative nature of the things produces something that is of the nature that it previously did not exist
504
505

Page #10

mKhas 'jugram bad [Al
Khas jug ram bsad [B]
TĀV
Prsi
Kaul Shastri. Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies Ix, lxii. Ixv, Bombay 1938-43 (repr. Delhi 1987). Globo mkhan chen bSod nams hun grub, mkhas pa nams ing pa i sgo w raam par bsad pa rie gras gsal byed 'phrul gyi me lon. In: Selected Writings of Glo-bo mkhan-chen bSod-nams Thun-grub, Vol. 3, Manduwala/Dehra dun: Pal Evam Chodan Ngorpa Centre, 1985. ibid. (Glo bo sMon than Ms.] New Delhi 1979. Tantraloka (Abhinavagupla): see TAV Tantralokaviveka (Jayaratha): The Tantraloka of Abhinavagupta with the Commentary of Jayaratha, edited by R.C. Dwivedi and N. Rastogi, Delhi 1987. Pratibandhasiddhi (Sankaranandana, Peking (abbr. 0) Vol. 138, No. 5755. 325a7-326b1, Derge (abbr. D) Tshad ma Vol. 17, No. 4257, 30261-303a7. Pramanavārtikarika (Sankaranandana): Derge Tshad ma Vol. 9, No. 4223, Pe 1b1-293a7. Malinivijayavárnika (Abhinavagupca): Sri Malinivijayavárttikam of Abhinava Gupta, ed by. Madhusudan Kaul Shastri, Kashmir Series of Texts and Studies xxxil, Srinagar 1921 Sambandhapariksansara (Sankaranandana); Derge Tshad ma Vol. 17. No. 4237, 21b4-35a3. Syädvodaratnákara (Vadidevasuri): Srimad-Vadidevastiriviracitah Pramanandyalarnálokálankarah tadyakhya ca Syud. vidaratnákarah. Ed. L. Motital. [5 vols. Poona 1926-1930. Pramanavarttikasvartai (Dharmakirti) Raniero Gnoli (ed.). The Pramanavar tikam of Dharmakfrui. The First Chapter with the Androcommentary. Text and Critical Nores. Roma 1960
PVTT MVV
Buddhismes, Gedenkschrift für Landwig Alsdorf Wiesbaden, pp. 129.149. Krasser, H. (1991) "On the Relationship between Dharmottara, Santaraksita and
Kamalasila". In: Thara, S., Yamaguchi, Z. (Eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Seminar on Tibetan Studies, Narita August 27th - September 2nd. 1989. Toky, pr
151-158. Kuijp. L.W.J. van der (1983) Contributions to the Development of Tibetan Buddhist
Epistemology. From the eleventh to the thirteenth century. Wiesbaden Kuijp. L.W.J. van der (1994a) "Fourteenth Century Tibetan Cultural History IV: The Tshad
ma'i bying ishul 'chad nyan gyi rgyan. A Tibetan History of Indian Buddhist Pramanaváda". In: Balbir, N., Bautze, J.K. (Eds.) Festschrift Klaus Bruhn. Reinbek,
Pp. 375-402 Kuijp, L.W.J. van der (1994b) "On the lives of Śakyasribhadra (?-?1225)". Journal of the
American Oriental Society 114/4: 599-616 (review of Jackson 1990). Mejor, M. (1991) "On the Date of the Tibetan Translation of the Prandasamuccaya and
the Pramanavarttika". In: Steinkellner, E. (Ed.) Studies in the Buddhist Epistemo logical Traditions. Proceedings of the 2nd International Dharmakirti Conference
Vienna, pp. 175-197. Much. M.T. (1988) A visit to Rahula Sankrtydyand's collection of negatives at the Bihar
Research Society school. Texts from the Buddhist epistemological school. Wien. Much, M.T. (1991) Dharmakirtis Vädanydyak. Teil I. Sanskrit-Text. Teil II. Übersetzung und
Anmerkungen. Vienna Naudou, J. (1980) Buddhists of Kasmir. Transl. from French by Brereton and Picron. Delhi. Obermiller, E. (1932) The History of Buddhism in India and Tiber by Burston. Translated
from Tibetan. Heidelberg (repr. Delhi 1986). Padoux, A. (1992) Vác. The Concept of the Word In Selected Hindi Tantras. Translated by
Jacques Gontier, Albany, Pandey, K.C. (1963) Abhinavagupta. An Historical and Philosophical Study. Varanasi Schiefner, A. (1869) Tarandtha's Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien. Aus dem Tibe.
rischen übersetzt. St. Petersburg. Stcherbatsky. Th. (1932, 1930) Buddhist Logic. Vols. I-II. Leningrad. Steinkellner. E. Much, M.T. (1995) Texte der erkenntnistheoretischen Schule des
Buddhismus. Göttingen. Torella, R. (1988) "A Fragment of Utpaladeva's Isvarapratyabhijro wurti". East and West
38/1-4: 137-174. Torella, R. (1994) The Isvarapratyabhijākārika of Utpaladeva with the Author's Ver
Critical edition and annotated translation. Roma. Tsukamoto, K. et al. (1990) A descriptive bibliography of the Sanskrit Buddhist literature.
Vol III. Abhidharma, Madhyamaka, Yogicara. Buddhisi epistemology and logic. Kyoto Vidyabhusana. S.C. (1920) A History of Indian Logic. Calcutta (repr. Delhi 1988).
SVR
PVSV
Translations and studies
Buhnemann, G. (1980) "Identifizierung von Sanskrittexten Sankaranandanas". Wiener
Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 24: 191-198. Frauwallner, E. (1933) "Dignaga and anderes". In: Festschrift für Moriz Winternitz Leipzig.
pp. 237-242 [= Kleine Schriften pp. 484-489). Funayama, T. (1994) "Remarks on Religious Predominance in Kashmir. Hindu or
Buddhast?" In: Ikari, Y. (Ed.) A Study of the Nilamata. Aspects of Hinduism in Ancient
Kashmir. Kyoto. pp. 367-375. Gnoli (1960) "Introduction to PVSV. Jackson, D.P. (1987) The Entrance Gare for the Wise (Section III). Sa-skya Pandita on
Indian and Tibetan Traditions of Pramana and Philosophical Debate. Vienna Jackson, D.P. (1990) Two Biographies of Sakyasribliadra. Stuttgart Jambūvijava. Muni (1981) "Jaincarya-Sri-Hemacandrasuri-mukhya isyabhyam Acārya-Rama
candra-Gunacandrabhyam viracitilyam Dravyalankara-svopaja cik ayam Bauddhagran thebhya uddhrah pathah". In: Bruhn, K. Wezler, A. (Eds.) Studien zum Jainismus und
.
506
507

Page #11
508 Uipaladeva Abhinava upla Not ascribed Before MVV Before TA Before IPVV Before Isvarupratyabhimavirti After IPvv yad aha bhartali karyancityat prak svasarn vidasumvirsmaranantare liri quoted in IPVV II 369,12-14; Source unknown Prajnalarkara-| Dharmalarkarakarika karika with commentary Brhaipramanya karika ? Suksinaprumanya karika ? Madhyapramanya karika Anyapohasiddhi kurika with commentary Pratibandhasiddhi karika ? Laghupratibandhasiddhi karika isvara pakaranasan ksepa (includes Sarksiptesvarapakaranakarika) Isvarupakarana karika with commentary Vadanyaya Commentary Sambandhapari ksanusara Prainanavartikaika Survujnasiddhi kariku with commentary Svalpasarvajnasiddhi kurika with commentary Agamasiddhi kurika with commentary Sankaranandana's works in relation to the writings of Utpaladeva and Abhinavagupta