9058009374

TIIE DATĘ OF ŚAŃKARACARYA 7

only I rcfcrrcd to 11 Bombay Law Reporter, Vol. IX, pp. 58 to 68, wherein the plainliff (Madhava-llrtha) was said to have produced Mathśmnśya only and nothing else to prove his litle, there being no refcrence to Sudhanva*s grant or to any other grant being produced in the Court.

Prof. Vcnkatachalam ot* Vikram Univcrsily, Ujjain wrole some years ago a very learned and critical article bcaring on this copperplate.¹⁴ He argued thcrcin thal ii* the copperplate rcally belongcd to the 5th cent. B.C., it must havc bccn wriltcn in prc-Aśokan BrShinl script. This script was first deciphered in 1837 A.D. - only 60 years before the publicalion of Vimarśa, in which it was given in fuli (in Devanagar! script). He then wonders as to who could have rcad and cxplained the tcxt to the Swamiji, who wrote Vimarśa about 1898 A.D. The Swamiji is sileni about the script, which itself should have decidcd the rcal antiquity or otherwisc ol* the ptale. 11' the piąte is in pre-Aśokan BrahinT script of 5lh cent. B.C., it will havc claim to antiquity. If it is not, the 5th or 6lh cent. B.C. datę for Sań. has no solid foundation.¹⁴*

Rcgarding Śań.'s visit to Nepal, Prof. Umcsh has analysed the contents,¹⁵ chronological as well as factual, of the NcpfJa Vamśavali and has concluded that though the same can at ils best and in its latcr portions be used for listing the names of kings, it is complelely unreliablc for assigning dates and dcscribing cvents and hcnce to use it to fix the dale of Sań. is wholly unjuslifiable. He has also produced at the end of his book a leller (xerox copy) from the Govt. of Nepal slating that they have no record showing the visit of Sań. to Nepal during 400-500 B.C. Withoul any desire to attempt any justification of the Ncp&la VaihiSvaIi_f I wish to make the following observations:

9

i) II' the Nepal Govt. has officially denied having any record of Sań.’s visit to Nepal, no other argument was required to be advanccd, at least so far as the ąuestion of dcciding Sań.’s age on the basis of the VamśSva]i was concerned. The dcnial itself nips the whole issue in the bud at least with regard to the Vaihś&vali.

ii)    Shri Bhagwanla) Indraji or Dr. Biihlcr has menlioned in elear language that according to the Ncpala Vaihśavali only, Sań. visitcd Nepal during the reign of king Vrsadevavarman, whose limę in history is then sought to be deterinincd with refcrence to the inscriptions of king Sivadcvavarman of the same dynasty as Vrsa. Either the Nepal Govt. rccords are deficient or the second statement is wrong/false.

iii)    Prof. Umesh, who analyscs so crilically the contents of the Vartisńvali, does not say a word about the manner in which the VaitńSvali is sought to be interprclcd and then used by Dr. Biihler. A couple of examples may be noted:

a) He disbelicves the number of 1118 years allotted to the 29 kings