9058009387

TI DE DATĘ OF ŚAŃKARACARYA 9

and hencc neilher is earlicr than the second hall* of the 6lh cent. A. D._f

9

is attacked by Santa, (middie of the 8th cent. A. D.) and by Akalańka (middle of the 8th cent. A.D.). Hcnce Kuma. is not earlier than the 5th cent. A.D. (Bharlr.) and not later than the middle of the 8th cent. A.D. Thcn, again, Kuma. and Prabhakara wcre contemporarics. Prabha. rcfers to Bhartr. (5th ccnt.A.D.) and knew Dhanna. (6th cent. A.D.) and so bolh Kuma. and Prabha. arc not earlier than 6th cent. A.D.

3)    Surę. attacks Dhanna. and quotes from the work of Kuma. and hence he must have come afler the 7lh cent. A.D. He was also a senior contemporary of Śań.

9

4)    Sań. himself altacks Dhanna. (6lh cent. A.D.) and refers to Dińnśłga (6th cent. A.D.) and hence has to be placcd aller the 6lh cent. A.D.

5)    Sarvajrtaiman, said to be the disciple of Surę. and also one of the pontiffs of the KSrtcT. Muli, rcfers to his Guru ParamparS as (je), (Wfję) and (micMtyp) which is entirely diffcrrent from

as claimed by the said Mutt.

/

Then his relerence to King Manukuladitya in his work Saiikscpa S&rfraka can be traccd to a Kerala king who rulcd ccnlurics after Christ.

6)    Anandajrtfina, said to be the 6lh pontiff of the Kartel. Mutt refers to a commentary Prakatartha on the DSDh. and this commentary refers to Udayana who livcd in the lOlh cent. A.D.

Bolh Sarva. and Ananda. must therefore have lived after the 5th or 6lh cent. the latter even after the lOlh cent. A.D., as againsl the very early B.C. dates (384 B.C. and 55 B.C.) assigned to them in the list of the Kartel. Mutt.

The ullimatc conclusion of Prof. Umcsh is that in vicw of the evidence

9

pul forward by him, Sań. has to bc placcd in ihc A.D. period only and not at all in any B.C. period. Hc disposes of the two A.D. theories viz. 788 A.D. and 805 A.D. as bcing unlcnable and gives it as his (personal)

9

opinion that Sań. could not have flourished later than the 7th or the end of the 7lh cent. A.D. He should have llourishcd in the 7th cent. A.D.

In connection wilh this same topie viz. Śań.’s dale, Prof. Umesh has discovcred the dates of Aśoka, the Gupta Kings and Buddha and Mah2vlra and tried to show that a rcvision of these dates as proposed by some recent native scholars is not borne out by evidcnce and hence do not need to be upset. In the case of Buddha and Maha., he mainlains that they were contemporaries beyond doubt and lhough Buddha*s datę may be 100 years here and there, it can ccrlainly not bc as early as the 19th cent. B.C. as said by these nalive scholars.