Shankara's Date (Revised (Unpublished) 1983)

SHANKARAS DATE
Foreword by
DR. K. KUNJUNNI RAJA
Director, Adyar Library and Research Centre
Revised (unpublished): 1983

(Computer Typeset by K. Parthasarathy, 2014)
Shankaras Date
CONTENTS
FOREWORD .......................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3
1. GAUDAPADA .................................................................................................................. 5
1.1
Gaudapadas References ........................................................................................................... 5
1.2
Gaudapada and the Sankhya-karikas....................................................................................... 8
1.3
Gaudapada and Bhavaviveka ................................................................................................. 10
1.4
Gaudapada and Shankara........................................................................................................ 13
2. KUMARILA BHATTA ................................................................................................... 15
2.1
Kumarila and Vindhyavasin ................................................................................................... 15
2.2
Kumarila and Samantabhadra ................................................................................................ 16
2.3
Kumarila and Dinnaga ............................................................................................................ 19
2.4
Kumarila and Bhartrhari ......................................................................................................... 24
2.5
Kumarila and Kalidasa ............................................................................................................ 28
2.6
Kumarila and Dharmakirti...................................................................................................... 33
2.7
Kumarila and Santarakshita .................................................................................................... 37
2.8
Kumarila and Akalanka ........................................................................................................... 39
2.9
Kumarila and Prabhakara ....................................................................................................... 45
2.10 Final Remarks on the Date of Kumarila .............................................................................. 54
2.11 Kumarila and Shankara ........................................................................................................... 55
3. SHANKARA AND BUDDHISTS ..................................................................................58
3.1
Shankara and Dinnaga............................................................................................................. 58
3.2
Shankara and Dharmakirti ...................................................................................................... 59
4. SIXTH CENTURY BC THEORY ................................................................................68
4.1
Kashmir Temple ...................................................................................................................... 68
4.2
Nepal Vamsavali ...................................................................................................................... 71
4.4
Math Records ........................................................................................................................... 77
4.4.1 Introductory remarks on Math records ................................................................................ 77
4.4.2 Vacaspati and Udayana ........................................................................................................... 79
4.4.3 Sarvajnatman ............................................................................................................................ 81
4.4.4 Shuddhananda and Anandajnana .......................................................................................... 85
4.4.5 Paramasivendra Saraswathi and Sadasiva Brahmendra ...................................................... 91
4.4.6 Misquotations ........................................................................................................................... 94
4.4.7 Gaudapada and Govindapada ................................................................................................ 97
4.4.8 Vimarsha ................................................................................................................................. 101
4.5
Brihat Shankara Vijaya .......................................................................................................... 106
4.6
Jina Viyaya ............................................................................................................................... 110
5. FIRST CENTURY BC VIEW ...................................................................................... 116
6.1
Purnavarman........................................................................................................................... 120
6.2
Pataliputra ............................................................................................................................... 122
6.3
Kongudesa Rajakkal .............................................................................................................. 124
6.4
Bana, Dandin and Shankara ................................................................................................. 126
7. EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURY AD THEORIES ............................................. 128
7.1
General points about Eighth and Ninth Century views .................................................. 128
7.2
Hymns of Shankara ............................................................................................................... 134
7.3
788 AD Theory ...................................................................................................................... 138
7.4
805 AD Theory ...................................................................................................................... 139
8. SECOND LIMIT FOR SHANKARA'S DATE ........................................................... 145
8.1
Vacaspati and Shankara......................................................................................................... 145
2
Shankaras Date
8.2
Vidyananda and Sureswara ................................................................................................... 146
8.3
Shankara and Mandana Mishra ............................................................................................ 149
9. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 154
Appendix I
Date of Ashoka ..................................................................................................... 157
Appendix II
Puranas and Gupta period.................................................................................... 167
Appendix III Date of Buddha...................................................................................................... 173
Shankaras Date
FOREWORD
I have great pleasure in writing a foreword to this monograph on the date of
Shankaracharya. The controversy on the problem of Shankaras date has lashed for
nearly a century now. About twenty years ago, I tried to analyse the various aspects
of the problem and present a clear picture of the position in a paper published in
the Adyar Library Bulletin (1960). Much has been written after that. Allen Thrasher,
who has recently made a deep study of Mandana Mishra, is in favour of assigning
Shankaras floruit to 700 A.D. or slightly before (Vienna Journal, 1979, pages 117139). The present work is suggesting that Shankara lived in the 7th century A.D. All
the earlier discussions on the problem, including Thrashers have been examined.
The various biographies of Shankara and the Guru Paramparas in the Mutts
have only the value of traditions. By Shankaracharya, we mean the author of the
Bhasyas on the Brahmasutras, the Bhagavad Gita and the major Upanishads. From
the quotations found in his works, it is definite that he is later than Bhartrhari,
Dinnaga, Gaudapada, Dharmakirti and Kumarila Bhatta and cannot therefore be
earlier than 650 AD
The relation between Mandana and Shankara is still uncertain. According to
some commentators, Mandana criticizes Shankara; and tradition identifies
Mandana with Shankaras disciple, Sureswara. Regarding the date of Mandana we
can be definite that he is much later than Kumarila and Dharmakirti whom he
criticizes in his Sphotasiddhi. Umveka who commented on Mandanas Bhavanaviveka
pointing out different readings in the text has been quoted by Kamalasila in his
commentary on the Tattvasangraha. Kamalasila left India for Tibet in 779 AD
(G.Tucci, Minor Buddhist Texts, Part II, Rome 1958, Intro. P.8). Hence Mandanas
date cannot be later than the first half of the 8th century A.D.
Shankara was definitely earlier than Vacaspati Mishra who wrote the Bhamati
commentary on his Brahmasutra-bhasya and who composed the Nyayasucinibandha
in the year 898 which is equivalent to AD 841 if taken as Samvat era and AD 976 if
taken as Saka era. Scholars like Anantala Thakur take the former view. Anyhow
Vacaspatis date gives the other limit to Shankaras date. In the Asta-sahasri, his
commentary on Samantabhadras Aptamimamsa, Vidyananda quotes a passage from
Sureswaras Brhadaranyaka-bhasya-vartika. If the date of Vidyananda is definitely
determined, it will give a clue to Shankaras date also. The absence of any reference
to the philosophical system of Shankara in the works of Santaraksita and
Kamalasila, even when they discuss an Advaitavada under the heading of
Upanishadvada, and also in the works of Haribhadra Suri (730-70) has also to be
considered before fixing the date of Shankara.
Shankaras Date
The author of the present work has discussed the problems elaborately,
examining the pros and cons of the various views with an academic detachment
and I hope that the book will be of great interest to students of Indian Philosophy
in general and of Shankara in particular.
K. Kunjunni Raja
Shankaras Date
INTRODUCTION
It is unfortunate that it has not been possible to fix with certainty and
unanimity the period of Shankaracharya who is perhaps the greatest teacher the
world has ever known. Periods varying from sixth century BC at one end to ninth
century AD at the other have been suggested. The aim of this book, which is the
outcome of my research on this subject, is to throw some light, however feeble, on
Shankaracharyas period. I do not pretend to have considered all aspects of the
problem nor do I believe that I would not have erred. All I can say is I have tried
to be objective and true to my conscience.
In the subsequent chapters I have considered factors which go to set a limit
to the period before which Shankara could not have lived and to the period after
which He could not have flourished. I sought to consider, as far as possible, all the
major points connected with the numerous theories in vogue and have also sought
to analyse them. The reason is that I felt that an argument advanced for date
fixation deserves to be examined and, if feasible, either upheld or disproved, for
otherwise, it will be tantamount to deliberately turning a blind eye to some aspect.
Tentatively, I feel that seventh century AD is the proper period for Shankara.
I use the word tentatively because my study reveals this period but at the same time
leaves unanswered a few issues that cannot be ignored. Hence, I would request the
reader to understand my suggestion of the seventh century period in the light of
the comments which I propose to reserve till the end of the book.
I have devoted many sub-chapters for fixing the dates of Gaudapada and
Kumarila Bhatta because it is well-known that Shankara did not flourish before
them. Hence, their periods will serve to fix a limit on the period before which
Shankara could not have flourished. As regards the presentation and style of the
contents of the book, I would request the reader to make allowance for the fact
that my academic degrees are in the field of Engineering and not in the field of
History. As regards the spelling of the names of Tibetan Kings etc., I have spelt
them as I have been pronouncing them. Here again I would crave the indulgence
of the reader. In converting dates from one era to another, I have not maintained
the strict distinction between the current and expired year and so a difference of
plus or minus one year might occur in the result. The reason for my not caring for
this aspect is that this would make no difference for the purpose of my present study.
I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr. Kunjunni Raja, Director,
Adyar Library and Research Centre, for having consented to write a foreword for
this book.
Shankaras Date
Finally, I wish to explicitly aver that I have not written this book on behalf
of or to support any Math or group or individual. The views expressed here are
just my own.
Shankaras Date
1. GAUDAPADA
1.1
Gaudapadas References
To fix the period before which Gaudapada (deemed to be the Paramaguru

of Shankara) could not have flourished, it is essential to note the persons or works
referred to by him. He is decidedly the author of the famous Mandukya-upanishadkarikas and it is to these that we shall direct our attention.
(1) He has directly mentioned Buddha by name (vide Karika IV. 99) and also
attacked Buddhism (vide Karika IV. 83 with Shankaras commentary, etc.).
(2) Though Gaudapada has not referred to Nagarjuna, the author of the
Madhyamika Karikas, by name nor has he mentioned the latters work, nonetheless, a
comparison of the Karikas of Nagarjuna with those of Gaudapada leaves hardly any
room for doubt about Gaudapadas familiarity with Nagarjunas Karikas. The verses
that I shall be giving now and in points (3) and (4) were pointed out by Vidhushekhara
Bhattacharya in his Agama Sastra of Gaudapada.
a) Nagarjuna:

(A thing is not born of itself or from something else.)
Gaudapada:

(Nothing is born of itself or from something else.)
b) Nagarjuna:

(Change of nature never takes place.)
Gaudapada:

(Change of nature will not take place in any way.)
It cannot be argued that it was Nagarjuna who was familiar with Gaudapadas
work and was basing some of his Madhyamika Karikas on the Mandukya Upanisad
Karikas. This is because, while Gaudapada has mentioned Buddha and attacked
Buddhism, Nagarjuna has made no attempt to answer Gaudapada. Further, Nagarjunas
Karikas form almost the basic text of the Madhyamika School. On the other hand,
5
Shankaras Date
the Karikas of Gaudapada have another text, the Mandukya Upanishad, as basis.
Further, while negation is almost the end all of the work of Nagarjuna, it serves merely
as a tool in the hands of Gaudapada, to establish the non-dual Truth.
Now, let us turn to the date of Nagarjuna. It is of no consequence to us if
there was more than one Nagarjuna. Our interest now lies only with the Nagarjuna
who was the author of the Madhyamika Karikas. He wrote a letter to a Satavahana
king. The Tibetan translation of the text of the letter to Gautamiputra Satakarani is
available. This king certainly lived after the dawn of the Christian era. Thus, Nagarjuna
must be placed in the AD period.
From the writings of travellers like Hieun Tsang, it can be understood that
Nagarjuna was a contemporary of Kanishka. It is indisputable that Kanishka lived
well over a century after Ashoka. Ashokas date is definitely in the 3rd century BC and
this is well known (the answers to some objections are given in the Appendix Date
of Ashoka, wherein Kalhanas references too have been taken up). Hence, Kanishka
cannot be earlier than the first century BC. The first century AD and the second
century AD have been proposed as the periods of Kanishka. Thus, Nagarjuna,
Kanishkas contemporary, cannot be assigned a period earlier than the first century
BC and must have lived in the AD period.
Since Gaudapada was familiar with Nagarjunas work, it follows that he cannot
be placed before the first century AD.
(3) Yashomitra was a contemporary of Paramartha, who went to China and
translated many Buddhist texts in the reign of the Liang Emperor Wu li. Paramartha
died in 569 AD and so flourished in the 6th century. Obviously, Yashomitra, his
contemporary and the author of the commentary on the Abhidharma Kosa of
Vasubandhu (5th century AD), also flourished in the 6th century (vide On the Date
of the Buddhist Master of the Law, Vasubandhu by E. Frauwallner).
The period of Yashomitra is relevant here, for it seems that Gaudapada was
familiar with the formers commentary. I shall cite an example in this regard.
Yashomitra:
(If what has taken birth is conceived to be born again, there would be the
contingency of infinite regress.)
Gaudapada:

Shankaras Date
(If it be that that what has been brought about arises from something that is
born, there would be infinite regress.)
If it be that this statement of Gaudapada is based on what has been said by
Yashomitra, Gaudapada cannot be assigned any period earlier than the 6th century AD.
(4) The Buddhist scholar Asanga cannot be assigned any date earlier than
the 3 century AD. This has been substantiated by various scholars. Hence, I do
not wish to enter into a discussion on the same here. His period is relevant because
Gaudapada appears to have modelled a Karika on a verse of Asanga. Here also, as
in the case of Yashomitra, no firm conclusion can be drawn but it does seem that
Gaudapada has developed well what is contained in the verse of Asanga.
rd
Asanga:

(One should raise the mind that is dormant. When it is excited, one should
make it tranquil again. Again, when it in equipoise in that basis, one should leave it
alone.)
Gaudapada:

(One should awaken the mind that is dormant. When it is distracted, one
should make it tranquil again. One should know the mind when it is tinged with
desire. One should not disturb it when it is established in equipoise.)
If this verse of Gaudapada is indeed based on the verse of Asanga then it is
impossible to assign any period earlier than the 3rd century AD to Gaudapada.
Conclusion:
There is almost no room for doubt that Gaudapada was familiar with
Nagarjunas Madhyamika Karikas and so he can be placed only in the AD period.
It appears that Gaudapada was also familiar with the works of Yashomitra and
Asanga. Hence, there is scope to take it that he did not flourish before the 6th
century AD. Separate chapters have been devoted to discuss whether Bhavaviveka
actually cited Gaudapada and whether Gaudapada wrote a commentary on the
Sankhya-karikas which was translated in the 6th century AD.
Shankaras Date
1.2
Gaudapada and the Sankhya-karikas
The following argument is used by some to assign Gaudapada a period prior

to the middle of the sixth century AD.
(i) Gaudapada wrote a commentary on the Sankhya-karikas of Iswara Krishna.
(ii) This commentary was translated into Chinese in the middle of the 6 th
century AD.
(iii) Therefore, Gaudapada must have flourished earlier than the middle of
the sixth century.
Let us see if these arguments are valid or not.
Gaudapada and Sankhya-karika-bhashya:
(1) There is no respectable evidence to show that the author of the Karikas
on the Mandukya Upanishad was the author of the commentary on the Sankhyakarikas.
(2) This commentary is quite similar to the Mathara-vritti. It is unlikely that
Gaudapada, the author of the Mandukya-upanishad-karikas, would have copied so
much from some other work. The relative priority of these works has not been
settled conclusively but the balance appears to tilt in favour of the Mathara-vritti
being written earlier. This is because:
(a) We will see that it was the Mathara-vritti which was translated into Chinese
in the 6th century. Surely, it is reasonable to assume that if the other commentary
had existed earlier and was the original, then it would have been the one to be
translated. This apart, the author of the Mathara-vritti is insignificant compared to
Gaudapada, the author of the Mandukya Karikas. This again means that if
Gaudapada had written the Sankhya work and had done so before the Matharavritti, then there would be far greater chances of his work being translated. This,
however, was not the case.
(b) The Mathara-vritti contains comments on an important portion (at the
end of Sankhya-karikas) not touched upon by the other commentary. It is clear from
the similar nature of the commentaries that the author of one was familiar with the
work of the other author. Let us see what results if we take it that Gaudapadas
commentary was the earlier of the two. It follows that he failed to comment on an
important portion. Why? This question will be difficult to answer. On the other
hand, let us take it that Matharas work was the earlier of the two. Gaudapada
ignored this portion. Why? The answer can be that in the particular manuscript of
8
Shankaras Date
Matharas work and Sankhya-karikas got by Gaudapada, this portion was missing
and so Gaudapada was unaware of it. This is hardly unlikely, for even today, we
encounter many a commentary where some portion is missing. Thus, the fact that
Mathara-vritti contains a commentary on a portion not commented upon by the
other commentator favours Mathara-vrittis being the earlier of the commentaries
rather than the other way around.
Chinese translation:
Initially, when the commentary attributed to Gaudapada was compared with
the French translation of the Chinese version, it was concluded that Gaudapadas
commentary had been translated into Chinese in the 6th century AD. Later, thanks
to the research of persons like Belvalkar, it was conclusively shown that the
Chinese translation was actually that of a commentary known as the Mathara-vritti.
Though there is little scope for discussion in this matter which appears to be
almost settled, still, I shall cite some points mentioned by Belvalkar and others.
(1) The Chinese translation has a part pertaining to a dialogue between Kapila
and Asuri which is found only in the Mathara-vritti and not in the commentary
attributed to Gaudapada.
(2) The Chinese translation contains the elucidation of a verse that has been
commented upon in the Mathara-vritti but not in the other commentary.
(3) The Chinese translation relating to a verse pertaining to the mind
follows only the Mathara-vritti.
Conclusion:
The Chinese translation of the commentary on the Sankhya-karikas will not
serve to set a limit on Gaudapadas date because:
(1) There is no respectable evidence to show that Gaudapada, the author of
the Mandukya Karikas, wrote this. Further, there appear to be reasons to show that
he did not write it.
(2) What was translated into Chinese was the Mathara-vritti.
Shankaras Date
1.3
Gaudapada and Bhavaviveka
It has been pointed out by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya in his book Agama

Sastra of Gaudapada that Gaudapada has been quoted by Bhavaviveka, Santarakshita
and Kamalasila. Citations by Santarakshita and Kamalasila are not being considered
here, for they lived in the 8th century AD and so, these will not stand in the way of
Shankara having flourished even in the 8th century. The citation by Bhavaviveka
deserves, however, be analysed in depth, since he lived much earlier.
Bhavaviveka was a contemporary of Dharmapala. As stated by Hieun Tsang,
who travelled to India from China and returned in the period 629 to 645 AD,
Dharmapala was the teacher of Silabhadra and Silabhadra taught Hieun Tsang. So,
Bhavaviveka could have been alive in the middle of the 6th century. If he has cited
Gaudapada then we can assign Shankara no period later than around the middle of
the 7th century unless we take it that Gaudapada was not Shankaras Paramaguru.
That Gaudapada was Shankaras Paramaguru is not only known from tradition as
recorded in the Shankara Vijayas but has also been indicated by Shankara Himself
in a verse at the close of His commentary on Gaudapadas Karikas. He has referred
to Gaudapada there as Paramaguru (Gurus Guru). Some have suggested that the
common meaning of Gurus Guru be discarded in favour of the meaning Supreme
Guru. This interpretation is suspect because, in the very next verse, Shankara has
spoken of His Guru and it is inconceivable that Shankara would assign a far lower
status to His own teacher in preference to some other exponent of Vedanta. It
must be noted that Gaudapada is not regarded as a Rishi like Vyasa or Parashara.
Thus, if he was not Shankaras Paramaguru, then his position as far as Shankara is
concerned would only be that of a great Advaitic teacher. Moreover, Shankara has
referred to His Guru with extreme reverence. Thus, the interpretation of Paramaguru
in Shankaras verse as Supreme Guru is questionable and it is reasonable to
understand that He has spoken of Gaudapada as His Gurus Guru.
Bhattacharya has pointed out that Gaudapada appears to have been cited by
Bhavaviveka. Bhavaviveka wrote the Madhyamika-hridaya-karika and a commentary
on it called Tarkajvala. The Sanskrit originals are not extant but a fair Sanskritreconstruction is possible because a close Tibetan translation is available. With
regard to some verses of Bhavaviveka, Bhattacharya has written: four of them
being very important in the present connexion. While the first three have the
closest relationship with three Karikas of our text, the last (i.e., TJ.VII.13) is
entirely identical with III.5 of our text. There is therefore not an iota of doubt here,
that the GK was known to Bhavaviveka.
Bhattacharya has said that the following Karika of Gaudapada has been cited:
10
Shankaras Date
The reconstruction of the corresponding verse of Bhavaviveka is given as:

The difference in wording is clear. Now, I shall reproduce a mantra of the
Amrutabindu Upanishad and the reader can see for himself that the verse of
Bhavaviveka matches the Upanishadic mantra far more than the Karika of Gaudapada.
That mantra is:

Thus, Bhavaviveka has not cited Gaudapada here. Further, the passage of
Bhavaviveka may be translated thus:
The pot changes places on being moved but not the space enclosed in the
pot. Similar is the case of the Jiva, which is akin to space. This again is the
translation of the Amritabindu Upanishad verse quoted by me. On the other hand,
Gaudapadas Karika may be translated as follows: Since the Atma is referred to as
existing in the form of Jivas in the same way as space exists in the form of space
confined in pots and since the Atma exists in the form of the composite things just
as space exists in pots etc., therefore in the matter of origination this is the example.
The difference should be quite clear. Bhavaviveka makes reference to pots
being moved etc., but that is not spoken by Gaudapada. So, this verse has not been
taken from Gaudapadas Karika.
The other citations that Bhattacharya claims to have observed are also
questionable. He opines, for instance, that Bhavaviveka has cited the following Karika
of Gaudapada:

11
Shankaras Date
Bhavavivekas verse is:

It may be noted that:
(i) The wordings does not at all match
(ii) Bhavaviveka has cited the example of mud. This is absent in Gaudapadas
Karika.
(iii) In Gaudapadas Karika, the example given is meaningful. As there is no
difference in space, there is no actual difference between Jivas, which are
comparable to the space within pots. On the other hand, in the case of
Bhavavivekas verse, this is not apparent. While different pots may be made
of mud, it cannot be said that the mud with which one pot is made is
identical with that with which another is made.
(iv) Gaudapada refers to differences in forms, actions and names. This is not
found in Bhavavivekas verse.
Thus, the dissimilarity is more between the verse is far more than similarity
and yet Bhattacharya claims that there is closest relationship between them.
The instance that Vidhushekara has given of a verse of Bhavaviveka being
entirely identical can be taken up now.
Gaudapada:

Bhavaviveka:

()

12
Shankaras Date
(i) Anyone can see that the verses are not identical, unlike what is claimed by
Bhattacharya.
(ii) I would specifically like to draw attention to the use of the plural
(Jivas) by Gaudapada and the singular (In Atma) by Bhavaviveka. This makes
a world of difference. In the case of Gaudapada, the sense is that just as when the
internal space of one pot is associated with smoke etc., the internal spaces of other
pots are not so associated, likewise, the happiness etc., associated with one Jiva is
not there for other Jivas. On the other hand, because Bhaviveka has used only the
singular, the sense is, Just as when (the interior of) one pot is soiled, not all pots
are soiled; likewise the Atma is not affected by happiness, etc. Thus, it appears that
Bhavaviveka was citing or paraphrasing some other verse.
(iii) Gaudapada refers to pollution by dust, smoke etc. On the other hand,
Bhavaviveka verse refers to just dust, smoke.
(iv) The wording of the second line of Bhavavivekas verse is markedly
different from that of Gaudapadas verse. Are we to assume that Bhavaviveka was
citing only select words from Gaudapadas verse?
(v) In Bhavavivekas verse we have it that the space in the pot is
(enveloped) by dust and smoke. So, one could understand that the dust and smoke
are all around the exterior of the pot. On the other hand, in Gaudapadas verse, we
have (associated with) and since reference has been made earlier to space within
a pot, it is unmistakeable that the presence of these within a pot is being spoken of.
The difference is significant, for Bhavaviveka seems to be contradicting himself by
referring to space within a pot and then speaking of dust and smoke outside the
pot, while Gaudapada correctly refers to both within the pot.
Hence, we can see that it is unjustifiable to hold that Bhavaviveka was citing
this verse of Gaudapada and that in an entirely identical way.
Conclusion:
The claim that Bhavaviveka has cited Gaudapada is unsustainable. Hence,
Bhavavivekas date does not set a limit to the date of Gaudapada.
1.4
Gaudapada and Shankara
The purpose of this brief chapter is to link the information given in the
previous chapters with the date of Shankara. We saw that no limit is set on Gaudapadas
date by the period of Bhavaviveka and by the translation of a commentary on the
13
Shankaras Date
Sankhya-karikas into Chinese in the middle of the sixth century AD. He must have
flourished after Nagarjuna, who lived in the AD period. It is possible that he was
familiar with verses of Asanga, whose period is not earlier than 3rd century AD, and
Yashomitra, who flourished in the 6th century AD.
Now, Shankara has cited Gaudapada in His Brahmasutra-bhashya with great
respect. In His Brahmasutra-bhashya 2.1.9, Shankara has prefaced his citation of
Karika 1.16 of Gaudapada with the words:

(Here it has been said by the revered Acharya who is a knower of the true
tradition of Vedanta.)
Shankaras disciple Sureshwaracharya has explicitly referred to Gaudapada.
All this apart, Shankara has written a commentary on the Karikas of Gaudapada. In
a verse in that commentary, Shankara directly refers to Gaudapada as His Paramaguru
(Gurus Guru).
Thus, Shankara can be assigned no period earlier than Gaudapadas and so
Shankara could have flourished only in the AD period and, maybe, not earlier than
the 6th century AD (the period of Yashomitra).
14
Shankaras Date
2. KUMARILA BHATTA
2.1
Kumarila and Vindhyavasin

Summary of argument:
(1) Kumarila Bhatta has mentioned Vindhyavasin in his Shloka-vartika

(2) Vindhyavasin lived in the 5th Century AD.
(3) Hence Kumarila Bhatta cannot be assigned a date earlier than the 5 th
Century AD.
Kumarilas reference:
In his Shloka-vartika, Kumarila has said:

The second line, wherein it is said, And this has been written by
Vindhyavasin, makes it clear that Kumarila Bhatta cannot be placed before
Vindhyavasin. Incidentally, we also find references to Vindhyavasin in Yuktidipika,
Syadvadamanjari, Kamalasilas commentary on Tattvasangraha, etc.
Date of Vindhyavasin:
Paramartha, who was born in 500 AD went to China in 546 AD and died at
Canton in 569 AD. There he translated into Chinese many books which he had
taken from India. He was in China during the reign of the Liang Emperor Wu Li.
He has written an account of the life of the Buddhist scholar Vasubandhu, the
author of Abhidharma Kosha. In the course of the narrative he states that
Vindhyavasin defeated in argument Vasubandhus teacher Buddhamitra and that
Vasubandhu wished to avenge his masters defeat. Paramartha states that
Vindhyavasin lived after 1100 years after the Nirvana of Buddha. The question
now arises as to what was viewed by Paramartha as the date of Nirvana. This is
important, because in Chinese literature more than one date of Nirvana is
encountered. Fortunately Paramartha has himself written in a work of his that he
wrote it 1265 years after Nirvana (vide E. Frauwallner, On the Date of the
Buddhist Master of the Law, Vasubandhu). That work of Paramartha was written
in the latter portion of his life in China. Hence, we see that according to
Paramartha, it was 1265 years after Nirvana by the second half of the 6th Century.
15
Shankaras Date
So, 1100 years after Nirvana would, as per his computation, correspond to almost
the beginning of the 5th Century AD. Thus, Vindhyavasin must have been alive in
the beginning of the 5th Century or near about that.
Conclusion:
Since Kumarila Bhatta has cited Vindhyavasin who flourished in the early
part of the 5th Century AD, Kumarila Bhatta cannot be assigned a date earlier than
that.
2.2
Kumarila and Samantabhadra

(1) Kumarila has attacked the Jain scholar Samantabhadra.
(2) Samantabhadra lived in the AD period
(3) Hence, Kumarila lived in the AD period.
Kumarila attacks Samantabhadra:
Samantabhhadra was the famous Jain Scholar who wrote the Gandhahastibhashya on the Tattvarthadhigama-sutra of Umasvati. The early portion of the
Gandhahasti-bhashya is well known by the name Apta-mimamsa. Kumarila Bhatta
has attacked the concept of an omniscient one propounded in the Apta-mimamsa.
The Jains hold that Mahavira was omniscient. Till the time of the later day Jain
logicians, the belief in omniscience was more an article of faith rather than a
concept founded on logical reasoning. Samantabhadra was a famous writer in this
connection. Perhaps for the first time, Samantabhadra used being inferable as a
means to prove the existence of omniscience. He has said in his Apta-mimamsa:
:

(The existence of an omniscient one is established from the fact that to

some even subtle things, obscure objects, as also objects removed in space and
time become objects of direct perception, just as the existence of fire etc. (on, say, a
mountain) is ascertained on the account of its being inferable (since the sight of
smoke leads to the presence of being inferred).)
This may be compared with the following statement of the Mimamsaka
Shabarasvamin who has declared that Vedic injunction alone and nothing else is
16
Shankaras Date
authoritative in the matter of objects which are subtle, obscure and removed in
space and time. His words are:

It will be obvious that Samantabhadra is contradicting this position of

Shabara Svamin.
Kumarila Bhatta, in his commentary on Shabarasvamins Bhashya, has
attacked the view advanced by Samantabhadra by pointing out that there exists no
valid means of knowledge by which the existence of an omniscient being can be
established. Not only does Kumarila argue that such an omniscient ones existence
cannot be proved, he also strives to disprove the existence of such one. For instance,
he says:

(Who would deny an omniscient one if such a one knows by means of the
six means of valid knowledge (which include the Vedas)?)

(If an omniscient one is regarded as aware of everything by means of a

single perception, then that one will certainly cognize taste etc., through the eye.)

(That means of knowledge which now leads to valid cognition in the world
of a specific class of objects was of the same kind even in the past.)

17
Shankaras Date
(Where extra capacity of a valid means is seen in the perception of far and
subtle objects, there also the basic object (of that means) is not exceeded. Form is
not graspable by the ear.)

(The future can never be the object of the present direct perception. Nor
again can there be any cognition by inference in the absence of the means of
inference (for the means will be found only in future).)

(No such omniscient one is encountered now by us.)

(Since one who is not omniscient cannot know (another to be) an

omniscient one, you will have to imagine several omniscient ones (one to certify
the omniscience of another, one more omniscient one to certify the omniscient of
the former and so on ad infinitum).)
I have quoted these verses so that the reader can see for himself that
Kumarila does demolish Samantabhadras contention. A point to be noted is that
Kumarila was, in his attacks, primarily intent on showing that Buddha was not
omniscient.
Kumarilas attack on Samantabhadra is further confirmed by what has been
written by the Jain scholar Vidyananda in his commentary, Asta-sahasri, on the AptaMimamsa of Samantabhadra. Vidyananda clearly recognises Kumarila as attacking
Samantabhadra. The Jain scholar Prabhachandra has also recognized Kumarila as
attacking the Jain concept of omniscience. In his Prameya-kamala-martanda he has
paraphrased the Mimamsa objection as: Are the things known (to the omniscient
one) the objects of one or more perception? If the first alternative is accepted, it is
contradictory since the three kinds of objects of perception, namely the subtle,
obscure and distant cannot be the objects of one perception. If the second
alternative be accepted that they are the objects of various kinds of perception,
then it is tantamount to saying what is obvious.
18
Shankaras Date
Samantabhadras date:
From the chronology of the various Jain writers we can see that Samantabhadra
should have flourished a couple of centuries after the dawn of the Christian era.
So, Kumarila will have to be placed later than that period. If someone wants even
greater proof that Samantabhadra did not live before Christ, let me point out that
his work Apta-mimamsa is a part of his commentary on Umasvatis Tatvarthadigamasutra. We have some information about Umasvati from Jain sources. His mothers
name was Uma. He was also known as Vacakacharya and Umasvamin. He lived for
84 years, 8 months and 6 days. The Pattavalis on the Sarasvatigaccha state that he
became the pontiff of that seat in Vikrama Samvat 101 (=44 AD) and that the next
pontiff Lohacharya took over in Vikrama Samvat 142 (=85 AD). We are also told
that he was pontiff for 40 years, 8 months and 1 day. These Jain Pattavalis have
thus told us that he became pontiff in 44 AD and that he was succeeded by the
next pontiff in 85 AD. When Umasvati lived in the first century AD, how could
the commentator on his work have lived earlier? This rules out any period earlier
than the first century AD for Samantabhadra.
Conclusion:
Since Kumarila has attacked Samantabhadra, who lived in the AD period, he
too must have lived in the AD period.
2.3
Kumarila and Dinnaga

(1) Kumarila has attacked Dinnaga.
(2) Dinnaga lived in the 6th century AD.
(3) Hence, Kumarila should have lived not earlier than 6th century AD.
Kumarila attacks Dinnaga:
There are numerous occasions where Kumarila has attacked the famous
Buddhist logician, Dinnaga. We shall now consider a few examples from the Shlokavartika of Kumarila.
(i)
Kumarila says:
19
Shankaras Date
(Why do you imagine fault in logic and then criticize? Why do you, the
knower of logic, behave here like one who is out to mislead?)
Kumarilas famous commentator Umveka points out that the logician
referred to is Dinnaga and further, says that in the view of Dinnaga, that which is
accepted by both the Vadi (arguer) and Prativadi (opponent) is said to be means.
The words of Umveka are:

For justification of what Umveka says it will be necessary to quote more

verses of that portion of the Shloka-vartika. As that will mean unnecessary
digression, I will leave it to those interested to refer the text of the Shloka-vartika.
(ii)
Kumarila says:

(The disparity between the means and that to be proved, as declared by
Akshapada, is clear. Not perceiving that some have criticized (what he has said). It
is free from fault.)
Umveka points out that the one referred to as the critic is Dinnaga. He says:

(criticized by Dinnaga. So he (Kumarila) says Having seen)
For full details the text may be referred to.
From these examples it should be clear that Kumarila has attacked the
Buddhist logician Dinnaga. There are many more instances but these are not being
given here, for the interested reader can himself refer the text of Shloka-vartika and
Umvekas commentary, as also the Sanskrit reconstructions of Dinnagas works.
Moreover, Dinnagas commentator, Jinendra Buddhi has, in his Tika on Dinnagas
Pramanasamuccaya, explicitly referred to Kumarila as contradicting Dinnaga. For
instance in his Tika on verse 48 of the Pratyaksha Pariccheda, he writes
20
Shankaras Date

(Pramanasamuccaya - Mysore Edition.)
(As to what Acharya Dinnaga had stated, Kumarila said, No)
Date of Dinnaga:
(1) Dinnaga was a famous Buddhist logician about whose identity, there is
absolutely no confusion. He has attacked Vatsyayanas commentary on the Nyayasutras of Gautama. Speaking of this attack, the great scholar Vacaspati Mishra has
said in his Nyaya-vartika-tatparya-tika:

(Even though this had been expounded by the author of the Bhashya
(Vatsyayana), still on account of perverse reasonings of recent ones headed by
Dinnaga)
Vacaspati Mishra, as per his own statement, flourished in the 9th century AD
(vide Vacaspati and Udayana). He calls Dinnaga an or a recent one. If
Dinnaga were to have lived in the BC period, over thousand years before Vacaspati,
then this word would have been quite inappropriate. All are agreed on the great
scholarliness of Vacaspati Mishtra. Hence, there is no justification to say that he had
picked a wrong phrase. He must have meant what he said and this statement of
Vacaspati itself should be sufficient to show that Dinnaga lived only in the AD period.
(2) Since both Udyotakara, the author of Nyaya-bhasya-vartika (commentary
on the Nyaya-bhashya) and Vacaspati, the author of the commentary thereon,
consistently hold that Dinnaga has attacked Vatsyayanas Nyaya-bhashya and
further since they cite instances of the same, we can safely take it that Dinnaga
could not have lived before Vatsyayana. This apart, the available translations of
Dinnagas works reveal Dinnagas attack on the Nyaya-bhashya. So, fixing Vatsyayanas
period is pertinent here.
(a) Vatsyayana, in his Nyaya-bhashya, alludes to certain logicians according
to whom a syllogism consists of ten members as against the normally accepted five
members. The propounding of the ten-members-syllogism view was done in
Dasavaikaika Niryukti by the Jain scholar Bhadrabahu. Vatsyayanas view is that
the five additional members of the syllogism go to establish nothing new and so
should not be regarded as essential parts of a syllogism. The Jain sources clearly tell
us that Bhadrabahu died not earlier than one and a half centuries after the Nirvana
of Mahavira. Hence, Bhadrabahu must have been alive not earlier than 5th century
BC. Thus, Vatsyayana cannot be placed earlier.
21
Shankaras Date
(b) In his Nyaya-bhashya, Vatsyayana has referred the Artha-sastra of Kautilya.

He has said:

Hence, Vatsyayana must have flourished after Kautilya, whom tradition makes
a contemporary of Chandragupta Maurya who ruled in the 4th century BC (That
Chandraguptas grandson, Ashoka, lived in the 3rd century BC is elaborated in the
Appendices). Some scholars, however, assign the Artha-sastra a period couple of
centuries after the dawn of the Christian era. Since Kautilya is quoted by Vatsyayana,
the latter could not have flourished before 4th century BC or couple of centuries
AD depending on the date of the Artha-sastra.
(c) Nagarjuna, in his Upayakausalya-sutra, says that a thesis can be established
through a reason and an example which may be either affirmative or negative. A
syllogism, according to him, consists of three members and not five, with the last
two members - Upanaya and Nigamana - being superfluous.
Vatsyayana, in his Nyaya-bhashya on 1.1.39 answers Nagarjunas points and
shows that a syllogism should consist of five members. The part, may be
referred. It was shown earlier that Nagarjuna flourished in the AD period (vide
Gaudapadas References) and so Vatsyayana must also have lived only in the AD
period.
In the light of these considerations about the date of Vatsyayana it is
impossible to assert that Dinnaga could have lived well before the dawn of the
Christian era.
(3) Tibetan sources tell us that Dinnaga was a disciple of Vasubandhu, the
author of the Abhidharma Kosa. Whether we wish to accept this or not, it is
certain that Dinnaga cannot be placed before Vasubandhu, the author of the
Adhidharma Kosa. This is because Dinnaga has explicitly referred to and commented
on the latters writings, as has been discerned from the Tibetan translations and
Sanskrit-reconstructions available of some of Dinnagas works. E. Frauwallner has
in On the date of the Buddhist master of the Law, Vasubandhu considered almost
all the material bearing on Vasubandhus date and ascertained it. I shall paraphrase
some of the points culled by me from that comprehensive exposition.
(a) Hieun Tsangs writings lead us to infer that Vasubandhu, the author of
Abhidharma Kosa, flourished around 1000 years after Buddhas Nirvana. It is
22
Shankaras Date
important to know which date was assigned by Hieun Tsang to Buddhas Nirvana,
for he was the one who made this statement about Vasubandhu. We are told by
Hieun Tsangs pupil that Dharmapala lived around 1100 years after Nirvana.
Dharmapala was the teacher of Hieun Tsangs teacher Silabhadra. Since Hieun
Tsang travelled in 7th century AD, we can see that Dharmapala could not have lived
earlier than 6th century AD. Thus, according to Hieun Tsang, thousand years after
Nirvana must correspond to 5th century. Hence, according to Hieun Tsang,
Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma Kosa, flourished in the 5th century AD.
(b) In his biography of Hieun Tsang, Hieun Tsangs pupil regards the period
for Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma Kosa, as the 5th century AD.
(c) Paramartha, in his biography of Vasubandhu written in the 6th century
AD, causes us to understand that Vasubandhu lived over 1100 years after Nirvana.
Here again it is essential to understand what date he had in mind for Nirvana. He
himself has written that he wrote a work 1265 years after Nirvana. This work was
written by him in China in the latter half of the 6th century. Thus, even according
to Paramartha, Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma Kosa, lived in the 5th
century. Vasubandhu is said to have lived till around 80 years of age.
(d) Paramarthas disciple Hui Kai has also given the same period (5th century
AD) for Vasubandhu as Paramartha.
(e) Tao Chi, who lived in the 6th century AD has, in his preface to the
Chinese translation of Mahayanasangraha-bhashya, given information that places
Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma Kosa, in the 5th century AD.
Frauwallner also draws attention to the fact that another Vasubandhu must
have flourished earlier. This is because we have information that one Vasubandhu
lived in the 3rd century AD. This is confirmed by the fact that Kumarajiva who
flourished in the 4th century AD (344-413 AD) was given a book of Vasubandhu
by his teacher. This is mentioned by his pupil Seng-chao.
That another Vasubandhu lived in the 3rd century need not concern us, for
our interest lies only in Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma Kosa, who has
been clearly shown to have flourished only in the 5th century AD. After taking
various factors into consideration, he is generally assigned, by scholars, the period
400-480 AD.
Dinnaga must have been much younger than Vasubandhu even if he were
not a disciple. This is because, in his Pramanasamuccaya, Dinnaga expresses
uncertainty about Vadavidhi being a work of Vasubandhu. The pertinent Sanskrit
reconstruction from the Tibetan translation of Pramanasamuccaya runs thus:
23
Shankaras Date

The Tika on it runs as follows:

-

(Vide Pramanasamucchaya Mysore University Publication)
Hence, we see that in time of Dinnaga, it was generally held that Vadavidhi
was written by Vasubandhu. However, Dinnaga was not convinced about this on
account of some incompatibility between the views expressed in this and in the
other works of Vasubandhu. Perhaps being in two minds about its authorship, he
was willing to consider that Vasubandhu may not poured his heart out in
Vadavidhi. The point that is pertinent here is that Dinnaga must have written
about his uncertainty years after Vasubandhu passing away. Since Vasbandhu lived
till around 480 AD, it is reasonable that Dinnaga must have written Paramanasamucchaya not earlier than the first part of the 6th century.
(4) Some of Dinnagas works were taken to China around the middle of the
6 century. This does not mean that Dinnaga lived much earlier, for Paramartha
took with him even the latest, available works.
th
Taking all factors into consideration, scholars such as Massaki Hattori who
have directly dealt with the available Tibetan versions of Dinnagas works have
assigned Dinnaga to the second half of the 5th century and first half of the 6th
century.
Conclusion:
Since Dinnaga flourished not earlier than the second half of the 5th century
AD and lived into the first half of the 6th century AD, Kumarila, who has
repeatedly referred to him, cannot be placed before the 6th century AD.
2.4
Kumarila and Bhartrhari

24
Shankaras Date
(1) Kumarila has quoted the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari.

(2) Bhartrhari did not flourish earlier than the 5th century AD.
(3) Hence Kumarila could not have lived before the 5th century AD.
Kumarila quotes Bhartrhari:
Kumarila has made references to Vakyapadiya, the grammatical treatise of
Bhartrhari, on more than one occasion. Here is an example. In his Tantra-vartika,
he has said:
That the Tantra-vartika is a work of Kumarila is beyond dispute. This,

together with Shloka-vartika and Tuptika, forms his commentary on the Mimamsasutra-bhashya of Shabarasvamin. It might have been noted that in the above quoted
passage Kumarila used which means As has been said. This clearly indicates
that the words following this constitute a quotation by Kumarila and the contents
show that it should be from some grammar text. The quoted passage is from the
second Kanda of the Vakyapadiya, which is a well-known grammatical treatise of
Bhartrhari. There we encounter the following verse:

This leaves us in no doubt Kumarila citing the Vakyapadiya. Many more

instances can be given but since this fact is rather well-known, it is not necessary to
give more examples. Incidentally, in the context of Shankaras date, it may be
noted that Shankaras disciple Sureswara has attacked Brahmasiddhi, wherein also
Vakyapadiya is referred to.
Date of Bhartrhari:
While it is perhaps true, as many authors pointed out, that there existed
more than one scholar bearing the name Bhartrhari, our attention need be
confined only to the one who wrote Vakyapadiya. In this connection we may
consider the following points:
25
Shankaras Date
(1) In his Vakyapadiya, Bhartrhari has referred to the grammarian Chandra

by name and has respectfully ascribed his work to his Guru. That his Guru was the
grammarian Vasurata is clearly pointed out by Punyaraja, the commentator on the
Vakyapadiya, as follows:

(a)

(b)

Simhasurigani, a Jain scholar, too, has categorically stated as follows that
Vausurata was Bhartrharis Guru:
(a)

(b)

Thus, it is clear that Bhartrhari who wrote Vakyapadiya cannot be placed
earlier than Vasurata and Chandra (both of whom were contemporaries).
Vasurata was the brother-in-law of the Gupta king Baladitya and hence lived
centuries after the dawn of the Christian era. Paramartha, in his biography of
Vasubandhu, describes the debate between Vasurata and Vasubandhu wherein the
former pointed out defects in Vasubandhus Abhidharma Kosa while the latter
defended his work. Chandra was also involved. We have already seen that
Vasubandhu, the author of the Abhidharma Kosa, lived in the 5th century.
As Chandra and Vasurata cannot be placed earlier than 5th century AD,
Bhartrhari, the author of the Vakyapadiya, could not have flourished earlier than
the 5th century AD.
(2) Bhartrhari has clearly stated that much time had elapsed since the time of
the Mahabhashya of Patanjali (vide Kanda II of Vakyapadiya). Patanjali is assigned
the first century BC by scholars and so it follows that Bhartrhari should have lived
not in the BC period but in the AD period. I do not wish to give points concerning
the date of Patanjali because that will mean digressing heavily from the basic topic
of this work, the date of Shankara.
(3) Bhartrharis Mangala-shloka of the Vakyapadiya has been clearly paraphrased
by Harisvamin in his Satapatha Brahmana Vyakhya. That Mangala-shloka is:
26
Shankaras Date

The words of Harisvamin are:

It is patent that Harisvamin has referenced the mangala-shloka of Vakyapadiya.
As per Harisvamins own words, he completed his commentary on the Satapatha
Brahmana in Kali-era 3740 i.e., in 638 AD. Hence, Bhartrharis work cannot be
placed later than 638 AD.
(4) Frauwallner has clearly shown how the Trikalapariksha of Dinnaga relies
on the 3rd Kanda of the Vakyapadiya. Since Dinnaga lived not later than the first
half of the 6th century AD, it follows that Bhartrhari must be assigned either the 5th
century or early 6th century AD.
(5) In his Pramanasamuccaya, Dinnaga has quoted two verses from the
Vakyapadiya, one of which is:

This is found in the second Kanda of the Vakyapadiya. The commentator
Jinendra Buddhi in his Tika on the Pramanasamuccaya leaves no room for doubt
that the source of the verse is Bhartrhari by even naming Bhartrhari. His words are:

This also makes it clear that Dinnaga was familiar with the Vakyapadiya of
Bhartrhari and hence Vakyapadiya could not have been written later than the initial
years of the 6th century AD.
(6) Vrsabhadeva flourished around 700 AD and he has commented on
Bhartrharis work. He says that many teachers had commented on the Vakyapadiya
even before him. His words are:
27
Shankaras Date

To allow for many commentaries, we must assume the interval between
Vrsabhadeva and Bhartrhari to be atleast around 100 years. This implies that the
Vakyapadiya must have been written before 600 AD.
Decades ago, Bhartrharis death used to be assigned around 650 AD on the
testimony of I-Tsing who has acquitted himself creditably as far as the description
of Bhartrharis works are concerned. This date is now-a-days dismissed by scholars
as due either to confusion between Bhartrharis or oversight on the part of the ITsing. A date of around 650 AD for Bhartrhari is impossible due to the reasons
listed earlier. Bhartrhari period is now widely accepted by scholars to be the 5th
century AD. The credit for this goes to scholars like Rangaswamy Aiyangar,
Kunjan Raja, Nakamura and Frauwallner to whose writings I am indebted for the
material given here about the date of Bhartrhari.
In view of the various points discussed here, as also the other points made
by the above said-authors scholars which have not been listed here, it is evident
that Bhartrhari, the author of the Vakyapadiya, should have flourished in the latter
portion of the 5th century AD.
Conclusion:
Since Kumarila has cited the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari and since the latter
flourished in the second hali of the 5th century, it follows that Kumarila cannot be
assigned any date earlier than the 5th century AD.
2.5
Kumarila and Kalidasa

Summary:
(1) Kumarila has quoted Kalidasa.
(2) Kalidasa cannot be assigned any period earlier than 1st century BC.
(3) Hence, Kumarila could not have born earlier than 1st century BC.
Kumarila quotes Kalidasa:
In his Tantra-vartika, in the section pertaining to the Mimamsasutra

Kumarila has said, This has been shown by the poet and then

28
Shankaras Date
quoted the latter half of well-known verse from Kalidasas play Abijnana Sakuntala.
Kumarila words are:

In Kalidasas play Abhijnana Sakuntala, we have the scene of King Dushyanta

doubting whether Sakuntala, whom he desires, is fit to be his wife or not. He sets
his doubt at rest by stating that his mind could not have longed for a women unfit
for him. In this connection, there occur the words:

This clearly shows that Kumarila Bhatta has quoted Kalidasa. To say that
was just an ancient verse is not acceptable because:
(1) Kumarila has said, It has been shown by the poet. This is not the way in
which he would have made reference to the Puranas or tradition.
(2) The passage
Abhijnana Sakuntala.
is found in an identical form in Kalidasas play
(3) The commentator, while commenting on this passage of the Tantra-vartika,

has clearly said:
(Vide Tantra-vartika Tika)

(To illustrate the point, he cites the utterance of Kalidasa, .
Dushyanta having doubted, Is this Shakuntala fit to be married by me or not)
Thus, we see that the commentator himself has viewed this not as a quote of
some ancient traditional saying, Sukti, but he has recognized it only as a reference
to Kalidasas play. The connection in which the passage was used by Kalidasa has
also been indicated by the commentator.
29
Shankaras Date
(4) It must be borne in mind that the quoted passage is in the

Akshara Chandas (Metre regulated by syllables) called Vamsastha. As in the case
of Sanskrit metres, this has four Padas. Here, the rule is that each Pada must have
12 syllables and the ordering in each Pada must be: (short, long, short) (long,
long, short) (short, long, short) (long, short, long).
Since the part can constitute only 2 Padas, it is clear that an ancient
Sukti, if there was one such, cannot be just this. As far Kalidasas play is
concerned, this part indeed forms just the 3rd and 4th Padas. The complete verse
found in Kalidasas play is:

:
(Without doubt, she can be married by a Kshatriya since my pure heart

longs for her. In matters of doubt, promptings of the thoughts of good men
constitute a valid means of ascertainment.)
This complete passage cannot obviously be a traditional ancient pithy
utterance.
(5) Commentaries on the Abhijnana Sakuntala do not opine that the words
of Kalidasa are a direct reproduction of some ancient verse.
(6) Appayya Dikshita (16th century AD) has, in his work on Alankaras titled
Kuvalayananda, cited Kalidasas verse mentioned earlier as an example of
Atmatushti-pramana. He has said:

:
(The Atmatushti-pramana is thus Quotation. Here, Dushyanta, by means

of self-satisfaction, infers the legality of marrying Sakuntala)
It is quite clear that he is not referring to some ancient saying but to
Kalidasas play. Not content with this, Appayya Dikshita has pointed out that even
Mimamsakas have chosen to accept the Atmatushti-pramana. The commentary
30
Shankaras Date
Alankara Surabhi on Kuvalayananda elaborates on the quotation and the

circumstances portrayed in Kalidasas play.
Why should not the reference be to the story of Dushyanta and Sakuntala
contained in two other places where it is found, namely the Padmapurana and
Mahabharata? The answer is that this verse does not occur there. Thus it is beyond
doubt that Kumarila has cited Kalidasa.
Date of Kalidasa:
The date of Kalidasa is somewhat in dispute. The following points,
however, should serve as guidelines to the date of Kalidasa. I am giving even
contradictory points, for I only wish to show that while there may be disputes as to
whether Kalidasa lived in first century BC or centuries later, it is not logical to hold
that Kalidasa lived before the first century BC.
(1) Kalidasa has written the play Malavikagnimitra in which the hero is
Agnimitra, the son of Pushyamitra. Agnimitra and Pushyamitra belong to the
Sunga dynasty. This dynasty came to power after the Mauryan dynasty. Since
Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of Mauryan dynasty lived in 4th century BC and
since Ashoka lived in 3rd century BC, it is clear that Pushyamitra and Agnimitra
should have lived after that. If Kalidasa were to write about Agnimitra, surely he
could not have been earlier than Agnimitra. For details about the date of
Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka, the reader may refer to the Appendix Date of
Ashoka where the topic has been dealt with.
(2) The work Jyotirvidabharana purports to have been written by Kalidasa.
If this is true then it is not possible to assign a date earlier than 1st century BC to
Kalidasa. This is because the work is dedicated to Vikramaditya, to whom we
attribute the Vikram era of 57 BC. The date of commencement given in the text
works out to 33 BC.
(3) Kalidasa, in his Raghuvamsa, is said to have referred indirectly to
Vatsyayanas Kumasutra . I have not verified the original text of the
Kamasutra as I felt highly disinclined to do so. If this indeed be a quotation, then
we can use it in setting a limit to Kalidasas date. This is because tradition makes
Vatsyayana, the author of Kamasutra, same as Vatsyayana, the author of the
Nyayasutra-bhashya. If this be so, the possibility of Kalidasa having lived in couple
of centuries BC is ruled out. For further discussion, the points pertaining to
Vatsyayana contained in Kumarila and Dinnaga may be referred to.
31
Shankaras Date
(4) In his Meghaduta, Kalidasa seems to indirectly refer to Dinnaga, the

Buddhist logician. The commentator Mallinatha has indicated this. The actual
words of Kalidasa are:

Abandoning the rough hand of the path of Dinnaga would be the
implied meaning as distinct from the literal contextual meaning.
Mallinatha has said in his commentary:

(The use of the plural is out of respect Avoiding the criticisms of Acharya
Dinnaga, the opponent of Kalidasa.)
Dinnaga did not live in the BC period and lived only in the AD period. This
point has been discussed in greater depth under the heading Kumarila and
Dinnaga. If Mallinathas interpretation is right, then Kalidasa cannot have lived in
before Christ It must, however, be noted that Mallinatha gives this as implied
meaning only, apart from the straight-forward meaning of Kalidasas words.
(5) The Ceylonese tradition has it that in his last days Kalidasa went to
Ceylon and was killed there. His patron there was the king Kumarapala who lived
in the AD period.
(6) An argument advanced to assign Kalidasa the period 2nd century BC is
that he should have had been a court-poet in Agnimitras time. No doubt Kalidasa
has chosen to write about Agnimitra of the Sunga dynasty but this in itself is no
reason at all to disprove that he could have lived much later. If it be asked as to
how Kalidasa was able to write so many details about Agnimitra, it should be
borne in mind that he was an excellent poet and dramatist with a fertile
imagination. The changes that he has introduced in his version of Sakuntalas story
as differentiated from the same story narrated in the Padmapurana serves as an
example to illustrate his imaginative abilities.
(7) Some have argued that Kalidasa must have lived after the Manusmriti
was written but before the Brihaspatismriti was compiled. This is because, in
Abhijnana Sakuntala, Kalidasa has spoken of the death penalty for theft of gold.
The penalty described by the Brahaspatismriti is lighter than this and hence
Kalidasa must have lived before it was compiled. This argument will not hold
32
Shankaras Date
water since Kalidasa was not describing the law prevalent in his times but was
speaking of an ancient one. Even today, orthodox scholars quote Manusmriti as
authority. This does not mean that Brahaspatismriti has not yet been compiled.
In the light of these arguments, it can be concluded that Kalidasa could not
have flourished before the 1st century BC.
Conclusion:
We have thus noted that Kumarila Bhatta has quoted Kalidasa and that
Kalidasa did not live earlier than 1st century BC. Hence, to say that Kumarila
Bhatta lived before the 1st century BC is untenable.
2.6
Kumarila and Dharmakirti
According to Tibetan sources, Kumarila and Dharmakirti were contemporaries.

Are we to accept this statement, or do we have reasons to reject it? The aim of this
section is to examine this aspect in depth. In case we come to the conclusion that
we do not have sufficient grounds to reject Tibetan information about Kumarila
and Dharmakirti being contemporaries, then we will have it the Kumarila must
have been alive at least in the second half of the 6th century AD and more likely in
the 7th century also. To examine this aspect I placed before myself the Shlokavartika of Kumarila with the commentaries thereon, as also Dharmakirtis Pramanavartika, Nyayabindu, etc., whose Sanskrit originals are now available together with
commentaries. I am no scholar and so I must confess that it was a bit difficult for
me to identify with certainty as to who was attacking whom. For what it is worth I
will place before the reader what I understood and will leave it to the reader to
decide whether my arguments are convincing or not. Obviously, since this is not a
treatise on a comparative study of Mimamsa and Buddhist philosophies, I shall
confine myself to giving bare essentials of my study.
Kumarila attacks Dharmakirti:
It appears very likely from a perusal of the texts concerned that Kumarila
has attacked Dharmakirti. This view is firmly supported by Kumarilas commentators.
I have given particular weightage to the commentary of Umveka, for his period
was close to that of Kumarila. Umveka could not have been much removed in time
from Kumarila, for Umveka has been mentioned by name and has also been cited
by Kamalasila, who definitely flourished in the 8th century AD, as also by
Karnakagomin who has been cited by Akalanka of the 8th century AD. Hence, his
interpretation should carry weight. Here are some instances of Kumarilas attack.
1) Dharmakirti has pointed out:
33
Shankaras Date

This has been unmistakably attacked by Kumarila. He has said:

Umveka has quoted the earlier mentioned verse of Dharmakirti when
explaining the attack. For the benefit of the reader, who is unfamiliar with Sanskrit,
let me point out that Dharmakirti denied reality to external objects of cognition
and explained his view, while Kumarila took up each part of Dharmakirtis
formulation and picked holes in it. He further went on to justify his own view.
(2) Dharmakirti has said:

Kumarila refutes this by saying:

...
Dharmakirti is willing to acknowledge cognition itself as a Pramana because
it is conceived to include the act of act of cognizing, even though primarily it is a
result. Kumarila has taken up the issue and contraverted Dharmakirtis stand. The
references to and in the passages are noteworthy.
(3) Dharmakirti says:

34
Shankaras Date

Kumarila refutes all these points by saying:

The reader would not have failed to notice how ingeniously Kumarila
attacks the argument of Dharmakirti and how he picks parts of Dharmakirtis
utterances and turns them against him.
(4) Some have pointed how the Jain scholar Vidyananda depicts Kumarila as
attacking the views of Dharmakirti.
I had been able to find six more places where Kumarila has clearly attacked
Dharmakirti but am not citing all that here to avoid making this part of the
discussion unduly lengthy. I am confident that more examples will certainly be
forthcoming if a careful comparison is made but that will take much time. As I am
not competent for such a detailed study, I have not even attempted to make so
deep a study. All I wish to point out is that Kumarila very much seems to have
attacked Dharmakirti. So he cannot be placed before the lifetime of Dharmakirti.
Dharmakirti attacks Kumarila:
There seems to be very little reason to doubt that Dharmakirti has attacked
Kumarila.
(1) Kumarila has said:

Dharmakirti has attacked this in a series of verses commencing with:
35
Shankaras Date
The first verse of Dharmakirti is obviously a paraphrase of Kumarilas verse.

This is confirmed by the two commentaries to which I referred. For instance, it is
said:
Thus, Kumarilas argument pertaining to the eternality of the Veda has been
explicitly attacked by Dharmakirti.
(2) According to Santarakshita, Kumarila has said:
Dharmakirti contradicts this by saying:
Kumarila has pointed out that he was not willing to acknowledge the
existence of an omniscient one. In the cited verse, almost as a concession, he
seems to point out that he aimed just at denying full knowledge of Dharma in a
person. Only the Veda can reveal Dharma. As regards knowledge of everything
else (other than of the means to the higher good), a man may be omniscient.
Dharmakirti takes strong exception to this and says that it matters little whether
one can see far away objects or not. He asserts that what is needed in the holy
preceptor is the awareness of the means to liberation. He goes on to sarcastically
36
Shankaras Date
remark that if awareness of even far away objects was an important consideration,
then one might as well contemplate on eagles!
(3) Kumarila says:

(Thus, on account of being originated by man, there can be error in the
teaching.)
Dharmakirti counters this thus (vide his auto-commentary on Pramanavartika):

(Because there is lack of certitude that everything that is incorrect is authored
by somebody)
(4) Santarakshita, in his commentary on Vada Nyaya, has, in more than one
place, referred to Dharmakirtis attack on Kumarila.
I was able to locate some more examples but am not furnishing them here.
In fact, two portions of the of Dharmakirtis Pramanavartika appear
to be exclusively devoted to attacking Kumarila. In the light of this, it follows that
Dharmakirti has attacked Kumarila. Hence Kumarila cannot be placed after
Dharmakirti.
Conclusion:
Since Kumarila has attacked Dharmakirti and since Dharmakirti has, in turn,
attacked Kumarila, they should have been contemporaries. This view is strengthened
by the Tibetan record of Lama Taranatha which says that the two were indeed
contemporaries. The upshot of this, in the context of Kumarilas date, is that
Kumarila could not have lived earlier than the second half of the sixth century AD
and also not later than the first half of the 8th century AD. For details of regarding
the date of Dharmakirti, the chapter Shankara and Dharmakirti may be referred
to.
2.7
Kumarila and Santarakshita

Summary:
(1) Santarakshita has repeatedly attacked Kumarila.
37
Shankaras Date
(2) Santarakshita flourished around the middle of the 8th century AD.
(3) Hence Kumarila must have flourished not later than the first half of the
8 century.
th
Santarakshita attacks Kumarila:

The famous Buddhist scholar Santarakshita, in his works in general and
particularly so in Tattva-sangraha, has attacked Kumarila on many an occasion. To
say that he never pulled punches in his attack will be no overstatement. Here are
some examples.
(1) Santarakhita has, in his Tattva-sangraha, repeatedly cited Kumarilas to
attack it. An example is his citing the following verse, which occurs in the
section of the Shloka-vartika.

(2) He has directly contradicted Kumarila and this point has been clearly
brought out by his disciple Kamalasila, who has even explicitly named Kumarila as
the one being attacked. For example, in the section of the Tattva-sangraha,
Santarakshita has written:

In the course of his commentary on this, writes Kamalasila:

(It has been said by Kumarila)
(3) In his commentary on the Vedanyaya of Dharmakirti, Santarakshita has

cited Kumarila and even mentioned him by name. For example, in the
portion, with regard to the passage , he explicitly names Kumarila thus:
-
(It is said by Kumarila (reference).)
38
Shankaras Date
Not less than a hundred examples can be given to indicate Santarakshitas

citations of and attack on Kumarila. In fact the attacks are so crystal clear that that
only one who has never gone through the works concerned can contend that
Santarakshita has not attacked Kumarila.
Date of Santarakshita:
(1) We learn from Tibetan sources that Santarakshita visited Tibet at the
invitation of the Tibetan King Khri-sron-deu-tsan who was born in 728 AD. With
Santarakshitas assistance, the king built the monastery of Sam Ye in 749 AD (vide
History of Indian Logic by Satish Chandra). Santarakshita worked in Tibet for 13
years. He is said to have been born during the reign of Gopala, who reigned up to
750 AD, and to have died during the reign of Dharmapala, who came to the throne
in the middle of the 8th century AD. Hence Santarakshita must have flourished
around the middle of the 8th century AD.
(2) Santarakshita has commented on a work of Dharmakirti. Since
Dharmakirti flourished in the 7th century, it follows that Santarakshita did not
flourish earlier than the 7th century AD.
(3) Santarakshitas disciple and commentator Kamalasila was invited to Tibet
in the second half of the 8th century AD by the King Khri-sron-deu-tsan. There,
Kamalasila defended the views of Santarakshita against attacks and defeated Mahayana
Hoshang.
In the light of these points, it should be clear that Santarakshita flourished
around the middle of the 8th century AD and should have written his works in the
first half of the 8th century.
Conclusion:
Santarakshita who flourished in the middle of the 8th century AD has
attacked Kumarila. Hence, Kumarila must have written his works not later than the
early part of the first half of the 8th century AD. In fact it would be a more
reasonable assumption to take it that Kumarila must have lived not later than the
second half of the 7th century, for, by the time of Santarakshita, Kumarilas writings
had become well known.
2.8
Kumarila and Akalanka

(1) Akalanka has attacked Kumarila.
39
Shankaras Date
(2) Akalanka flourished in the eighth century AD.

(3) Hence, Kumarila cannot have flourished later than early part of the
eighth century AD.
Akalanka attacks Kumarila:
Akalanka was a reputed Jain scholar who authored of important Jain works
such as Asta-sati, Siddhi-vinischaya, etc. He was familiar with the works of Kumarila
and has attacked those passages of the latter which were considered by him to be
antithetical to the tenets of Jainism.
Numerous examples can be given without strain which go to show that
Akalanka was familiar with the writings of Kumarila. However, for the sake of
brevity, I shall confine myself to giving just one such example. In the course of his
attack on the concept of omniscience, Kumarila has said:

(When non-perception and absence of being knowable are there to deny

the existence of an omniscient one, how can one imagine the existence of such an
omniscient one?)
As against this Akalanka has said in his Asta-sati (on verse 5):

(When being knowable and existence strengthen the means to proving the
existence of an omniscient one, how can any conscious being seek to negate or even
doubt the existence of such a one?)
The wording of the two citations would not have missed the attention of the
reader and so I shall not elaborate on this aspect.
Let me now present some points to show that Akalanka has positively
attacked Kumarila. This is essential, for, otherwise, it is possible to get a doubt as to
whether Kumarila attacked Akalanka or whether Akalanka attacked Kumarila.
(1) We have seen earlier that Kumarila attacked the concept of omniscience
propounded by the Jain scholar Samantabhadra in his Apta-mimamsa. Akalankas
Asta-sati is a commentary on the Apta-mimamsa. Commenting on the verse quoted
40
Shankaras Date
in the chapter Kumarila and Samantabhadra, Akalanka has introduced a change in

argument by introducing (being knowable) and (existence). These have
not been specially attacked by Kumarila. If Akalanka did not have Kumarilas attack
in mind, there would have been no need for him to deviate from the ground,
(being inferable), advanced by Samantabhadra.
Vidyananda has written a commentary called Asta-sahasri on the Aptammamsa of Samantabhadra. He has explicitly stated that he followed the Asta-sati
of Akalanka in writing his commentary. Vidyananda has repeatedly attacked Kumarila
and appears to recognize the change in argument brought about by Akalanka.
As against this, Kumarilas commentator Umveka sees no refutation of the
views of Akalanka as far as the text of Kumarilas Shloka-vartika is concerned. All
these points favour the view that it was Akalanka who answered Kumarila and not
vice-versa.
(2) Kumarila has objected that that omniscience can be established only on
the basis of a scripture and further that scripture can become authoritative only if
an omniscient one is associated with it. Thus, either way, the Jain and Buddhist
concepts of an omniscient one cannot stand. Kumarila has said:

In his work Nyaya-vinischaya, Akalanka has countered Kumarilas charge of
mutual dependence by pointing to the condition of being without beginning. He
has first presented argument thus:

(Karikas 413-13 Singhi Jaina series No.12)
The reader may have noted how, in the second half of this verse, Akalanka
has reproduced, almost verbatim, what Kumarila said. It is clear that Kumarilas
Shloka-vartika has been attacked in his Nyayavinischaya.
(3) Santarakshita has paraphrased Kumarilas view thus:
41
Shankaras Date
(Tattva-sangraha, verse 3167 - Bauddha Bharati series)

(He who can jump a distance of ten Hastas cannot jump a distance of one
Yojana (around 8 miles) even with a lot of practice.)
Kumarilas view is that ones knowledge can develop but must certainly be
limited. It cannot be all-encompassing and so omniscience is not possible.
Akalanka has chosen to make a sarcastic remark about the above mentioned view
of Kumarila. In his Siddhivinischaya, he has said:

(People like you cannot jump even a distance of ten Hastas. That does not
mean that an eagle cannot traverse a thousand Yojanas.)
In the light of these examples, more of which can be easily given, it should
be clear that it was Akalanka who was familiar with and attacked Kumarilas work
and not vice-versa.
Akalanka, Karnakagomin and Umveka:
Akalanka has attacked Karnakagomin, the Buddhist scholar who has
commented on the Pramanavartika of Dharmakirti. Here is an example.
Karnakagomin:

(Pramanavartika commentary)
Akalanka:

(Vide Pramanasangraha)
42
Shankaras Date
The texts involved may be referred for further clarifications.

Karnakagomin has explicitly named Umveka in his commentary on Pramanavartika and also cited him in great depth.
Here is an example:
(But Umveka has said)

Thus, it follows that Akalanka lived after Karanakagomin who, in turn, lived
after Umveka. Umveka could not have flourished before Kumarila since he has
written a commentary on the Shloka-vartika of Kumarila. Thus, it follows that a
gap of at least fifty years must have intervened between Akalanka and Kumarila.
The inference is that Kumarila could not have flourished later than the early part
of the 8th century. In fact, assigning him later than the 7th century would itself be a
illogical, for there should have been some decades gap between Umveka and
Mandana, on whose work Umveka has commented referring to variations in text
(vide Shankara and Mandana Mishra). Mandana has explicitly quoted Kumarila
and defended his views and so cannot be placed earlier than Kumarila. Thus, it is
difficult to assign Kumarila a period even as late as the early part of the 8th century
AD.
Date of Akalanka:
One view is that Akalanka flourished in the latter portion of the 8th century
AD and the second is that he flourished around the middle of the 7th century AD.
The former view is now generally accepted. In presenting the arguments to
conclusively establish the 8th century view, I shall follow what has been set out in
the Benaras Hindu University Ph.D thesis of Mahendra Kumar Jain, which has
been published by the Bharatiya Jnana Pitha.
(1) The Kathakosa of Prabhachandra explicitly speaks of Akalanka as the
son of the minister (Purushottama) of the Rashtrakuta king Subhatunga. The
Rashtrakuta king who bore the name Subhatunga was Krishna I and he succeeded
Dantidurga alias Sahasatunga. He flourished in the 8th century and epigraphical
evidence supports this.
(2) The Mallisena Prasasti inscribed on a pillar of the Prasvanatha Basti at
Chandragiri refers to Akalanka being in the court of Sahasatunga. Sahasatunga was
a title of the Rashtrakuta king Dantidurga and this is confirmed by a pillarinscription. Dantidurga made a gift dated Saka era 675 or 753 AD.
43
Shankaras Date
(3) Akalanka has attacked Dharmakirti, Karnakagomin, Prajnakara Gupta,

etc. Hence he must have lived after the 7th century.
(4) There is a verse in the Kathakosa of Brahmanemi Datta (who lived
centuries after Akalanka) which says that in 700 Vikramankasaka a debate took
place between Akalanka and the Buddhists. This has to be interpreted not as
Vikrama era but as Saka era. The reason is that the author was a Jain and Jains have
used Vikramankasaka to refer to the Saka era. Examples of this form of usage are
found in Dhavala and commentary on Trilokasara.
The opposing views have been refuted as follows:
(1) To say that since Virasena has quoted Akalanka in Dhavala, Akalanka
must have lived before the 8th century is not tenable. Dhavala was completed in
816 AD. There is, thus, nothing wrong in Akalanka who lived in 8th century AD
being cited.
(2) Siddhasenagani has referred to Akalankas Siddhivinischaya. This does
not prove that Akalanka did not live in 8th century AD because the earliest
references to Siddhasengani is in Saka 799 or 877 AD which makes it quite possible
for Siddhasenagani to have himself been alive in the latter part of the 8th century.
(3) Haribhadra lived in 700-770 AD and has referred to Akalanka Nyaya.
This implies that Akalanka must have flourished earlier. This view is untenable, for
Haribhadra meant only fautles logic and did not name Akalanka. He has elsewhere
also explicitly used similar words in the sense of faultless logic. This apart, the
reference to Akalanka is not provable. Further, even assuming for the sake of
argument that Akalanka had been referred to, no harm is caused for Haribhadra
has cited two passages from the Nyayamanjari of Jayanta and so must have lived
decades after 770 AD, and not earlier.
(4) Jinadasagani Mahattara, who was alive in 676 AD, has referred to the
Siddhivinischaya of Akalanka and so the latter cannot have flourished in the 8th
century. This argument is incorrect because:
(a) Jinadasaganis date cannot be fixed on the basis of Nandichoorni,
wherein the date of completion is given as Saka 598 or 676 AD because it is open
to doubt whether he was the author of Nandichoorni. Even the commentator has
not attributed it to him.
(b) The reference in the Svetambara work of Jinadasagani is not to
Akalankas Siddhivinischaya but to the Siddhivinischaya of Sivarya. Support comes
from the fact that Akalanka was a Digambara and so Jinadasagani would not have
referred to him as a Darshana Prabhavaka. Further, Jinadasagani, a Svetambara,
44
Shankaras Date
would not have assigned higher priority to Akalankas work over the Svetambara
work, Sanmati.
Conclusion:
Since Akalanka, who flourished in the latter portion of the 8th century AD,
has cited Kumarila, it follows that the latter cannot be placed later than the middle
of the 8th century AD. Taking Akalankas attack on Karakagomin into consideration
and Karnakagomins reference to Umveka, assigning Kumarila later than 7th century
AD will be rather difficult.
2.9
Kumarila and Prabhakara
The relationship between Kumarila and Prabhakara, as far as their relative

periods are concerned, is important in fixing a limit on the date of Kumarila.
Hence, we shall investigate this aspect briefly. The tradition view is that Prabhakara
was a disciple of Kumarila. Our concern here is not so much whether Prabhakara
was Kumarilas disciple or not but whether or not he was a junior contemporary of
Kumarila. This question arises because some have said that it is possible that
Prabhakara was much earlier than Kumarila. Hence, we will examine these reasons
first.
(1) Prabhakaras style seems more straightforward and more ancient than
that of Kumarila. It thus appears that Prabhakara was merely following the Bhashya
of Shabarasvamin, unlike Kumarila who was reformer. Hence, Prabhakara must
have flourished earlier.
This point is not convincing because:
(a) There are occasions where it is Prabhakara and not Kumarila who
appears to go against the Bhashya. At any rate, it is difficult to aver whether it was
Kumarila or Prabhakara who interpreted the true spirit of the Mimamsasutras of
Jaimini. This is because the intellectual giants of the school of Kumarila such as
Umveka and others, as also those of the school of Prabhakara such as Salikanatha
and others have uniformly given a spirited defence of their respective schools.
(b) To say that the style of Prabhakara is ancient is not quite true. While it is
true that his writing appears more direct, it proves nothing about its being ancient.
Prabhakaras work is smaller than Kumarilas and so is it natural that deviations are
less in the former than in the latter.
(2) In his commentary, Umveka refers to Kumarila attacking an Anupasita
Guru or one who has not served his teacher properly. The reference is to
45
Shankaras Date
Prabhakara. Since Prabhakara has been attacked by Kumarila, Kumarila must have
flourished later.
This argument will not serve to prove that Prabhakara was a much earlier
writer than Kumarila because:
(a) It appears that Umveka now and then has used the term only in a general
sense and reading a reference to an attack on Prabhakara by Kumarila is forcing
interpretations.
(b) Kumarila has explicitly stated that there were Mimamsa writers before
him who had made a mess of the Mimamsa-sastra.
For instance, he writes:

(In general, in the world, Mimamsa has been rendered akin to materialism.)
Kumarila has even mentioned various interpretations of the Mimamsasutrabhashya of Shabarasvamin. For example, he says:

The reader might have noted how Kumarila points out that six meanings
have been given for the word of the Mimamsasutra. His use of (others) and
(some) are also noteworthy.
Since Kumarila clearly opposes the earlier commentators, who according to
him had made a mess of things, it is reasonable to assume that Umveka has shown
Kumarilas attack on these persons rather than on Prabhakara.
(c) In some places, Umvekas commentary reveals Umvekas personal attack
on the Anupasita Guru. It does not appear that, in these places, that he wants us
to believe that it is Kumarilas attack that he was paraphrasing. An example is:
46
Shankaras Date
(Here, Anupasita Gurus (those who have not worshipped their teachers)
question thus (Reply) That is improper)
(d) Even if it be assumed that Kumarila did attack Prabhakara, there should
be no harm, for he could very well have attacked Prabhakaras Laghvi. Laghvi is
not available but a strong case for there having been such a work has been
developed by Ramaswami Sastri and Sankaran in their contribution Kumarila and
Brihattika (3rd oriental conference, Madras) and by Kunjan Raja in his introduction
to Brihati.
In the light of these considerations, there is no justification to say that there
are grounds for setting aside tradition, as also the verdict of commentators and
others that it was Prabhakara who was posterior to Kumarila.
We will now go on to see the positive evidence in favour of Prabhakara
having attacked Kumarila in his Brihati. For this, it is necessary to introduce
Salikanatha, the expert commentator on Brihati. Salikanatha was like a pillar supporting
the edifice of the school of Prabhakara. Tradition makes him a direct disciple of
Prabhakara. Here are some evidences which support this tradition.
(1) Salikanatha has explicitly referred to Prabhakara as his teacher and
himself as Prabhakaras disciple. For instance (including himself), he states:

(Effort should be made by the disciples of Guru Prabhakara)

This apart, he has often made reference to Prabhakara as Guru as also Acharya.
(2) In his commentary on Brihati, Salikanatha pays obeisance to no Guru
other than Prabhakara and pays glorious tribute to Prabhakara in not one but three
Mangala-shlokas. If he had any other Guru, surely he would have mentioned him,
especially so since he was writing penned more than one Mangala-shloka. The
verses speak for themselves of Salikanathas relationship with and his great regard
for Prabhakara and so I shall reproduce them here.

47
Shankaras Date

Elsewhere also, in his works, he has paid obeisance to no teacher other than
Prabhakara.
(3) These are no effective grounds for saying that the tradition which makes
Salikanatha a disciple of Prabhakara is incorrect.
Hence, there are no valid reasons to disbelieve that Salikanatha was a direct
disciple of Prabhakara. So, great weight must be given to his interpretation of
Prabhakaras words. In his commentary on the Brihati, Salikanatha again and again
shows how Prabhakara is attacking the Vartikakara or the author of the Vartika.
Normally there would be no doubt that the reference is to Kumarila, the author of
the Vartikas (Shloka-vartika and Tantra-vartika).
Here some have raised the objection that the reference is not to Kumarila
because some verses attributed to Vartikakara are not traceable in the available
works of Kumarila. That this objection is inappropriate has been shown in the paper
Kumarila and Brihattika, referred to earlier. Some points in this regard are:
(1) It is to be noted that some verses attributed explicitly by Salikanatha to
the Vartikakara are indeed from the Vartika of Kumarila. Here is an example of
Salikanathas citations of the Vartikakara found in the Shloka-vartika of Kumarila.

(2) There are grounds to believe that Kumarila wrote works other than what
we have now and it stands to reason that the untraceable verses attributed by
Salikanatha to the Vartikakara must be from these. Else, we will be have to make
the odd assumption that at one moment Salikanatha had in mind Kumarila when
using the word Vartikakara and at another moment he had someone else in mind
when he used the same word. Some of the reasons that support the view that
Kumarila even authored works which were referred to by Salikanatha but which
are unavailable now are:
48
Shankaras Date
(2a) In the Sarvadarshana-kaumudi, it is said:

-

- ,

The general sense is: The Bhashya was written by Shabarasvamin. On it,
there are two expositions, that of Kumarila Bhatta and that of Prabhakara. There
are five expositions of the Bhashya by Kumarila Bhatta, namely, Brihattika,
Madhyamatika, Tuptika, Karika (Shloka-vartika) and Tantra-vartika. The Brihattika
and Madhyamatika are not extant.
(2b) Someshwara, the commentator on the Tantra-vartika of Kumarila,
explicitly indicates in his Nyayasudha that he relied on another celebrated writing
of Kumarila for his comments on the Tantra-vartika. The reference cannot be just
to the Shloka-vartika or the Tuptika, for these do not at all pertain to the portion
of Shabarasvamins Bhashya dealt with in the Tantra-vartika. In the Nyayasudha, it
is said:

(2c) Salikanatha has attributed the following verse to Vartikakara:

This verse is not found in the available works of Kumarila. Still, Jayanta
(whose period was around that of Vacaspati) has cited this and attributed it to
Kumarila Bhatta. In his Nyayamanjari, he has said:

49
Shankaras Date
now.
Thus, this verse must occur in a work of Kumarila which is not available
(2d) The commentator on the Tantra-vartika points out how Kumarila tries
to show that he is not contradicting the Brihattika. The commentator says:

Those who have gone through Kumarilas writings know that he is not one
particular about reconciling his view with that of some earlier commentator on
Shabaras work. His writing is bold and at times even aggressive. It would, on the
other hand, be quite reasonable for Kumarila to show absence of contradiction had
he himself been the author of the Brihattika, as stated in the Sarvadarshanakaumudi.
In the light of all these points, it is almost beyond doubt that Salikanatha did
understand Kumarila Bhatta to be the Vartikakara, whose views were opposed by
Prabhakara. We will now see some details of Prabhakaras attack contained in Brihati.
(1) Commenting on the portion etc. of the early part of Shabaras work,
Prabhakara discards the earlier interpretations and advances a new one. Salikanatha
points out how the interpretation of the Vartikakara (Kumarila) was discarded.
Nayaviveka is another standard text of the Prabhakara School and there also
the same aspect is brought out with the clarification that that the one opposed
indicated six meanings in one place and ten elsewhere (for that portion). Kumarila
has indeed given six meanings in his Shloka-vartika. The ten meanings given
elsewhere must have been in his lost work. The views indicated in the Nayaviveka,
and attributed to the opponent, have indeed been listed in Kumarilas Shloka-vartika.
Further evidence is found in the Nyayakosa where the reference to Kumarila
Bhatta, as the one opposed, is more explicit.
(2) Kumarila interprets as a . This interpretation is
discarded by Prabhakara and accepted.
(3) The regulation of Guna and Phala brought out by Kumarila in the Gunakama Adhikarana of the Mimamsasutras is contradicted by Prabhakara.
50
Shankaras Date
(4) Prabhakara (in Udgatradhikarana) explicitly declares that those who have
held the
interpretation are illogical. That is the interpretation of Kumarila.
Thus, Prabhakaras attack is clear.
If we go through the writings of Prabhakara in the light of the commentary
of Salikanatha, it is clear that Kumarila has been attacked by Prabhakara.
For completion of the discussion, it is necessary for me to consider what has
been pointed out by some that Kumarila has presupposed a particular line of the
Brihati in his Shloka-vartika and so Prabhakara could not have attacked Kumarila.
This means that all the commentators as also tradition may be wrong. The said
passages are:
Brihati:

Shloka-vartika:

Here, it may be noted that most of what is mentioned by Prabhakara is
found in the Bhashya of Shabarasvamin itself. Further Umveka, in his Shlokavartika commentary on this portion, sees no reference to the Brihati nor again does
Parthasarathy Mishra (in his commentary). Had Parthasarathy sensed something
wrong with regard to the corresponding Brihati passage, he would have been the
first one to indicate it, for he literally seems to have fumed at the very thought of
Prabhakara. Here is an example of how he refers to Prabhakara (in Nyayaratnamala).
The general sense is: This is the senseless prattle of the one who was devoid
of the study of the Bhashya (of Shabara) and the Vartika (of Kumarila), who was
devoid of discrimination due to fallacious reasoning, who was ignorant of the
subtleties of the logic of Mimamsa, who had not served his teacher and who was a
pet (only) of his mother.
51
Shankaras Date
It should thus be clear that the passage of Kumarila is not a citation from
Brihati and so no problem is introduced by it.
Hence, from the overall discussion so far, it follows that Prabhakara did not
flourish prior to Kumarila. That Kumarila and Prabhakara were contemporaries is
traditional view. Further, Kumarilas well-known follower, Mandana Mishra, has
attacked Prabhakara in Vidhiviveka, Vibhramaviveka etc., and this supports the
tradition spoken of earlier.
Prabhakara and Hariswami:
In his commentary on the Satapatha Brahmana, Harisvamin has explicitly
referred to Prabhakara. He has said:

(Those subscribing to Prabhakara hold (reference).)
Hence, Prabhakara must have written some work before the composition of
Harisvamin. I am indebted to the Hindi book Samskrit Vyakaran Ka Itihas, vol I
(second edition) by Yudhishtira Mimamasaka for this reference.
Harisvamin explicitly states that he completed his Bhashya when 3740 years
of the Kali Yuga had elapsed, that is in 638 AD. His words (which were cited in
the chapter Kumarila and Bhartrhari) are reproduced here.

Thus, it follows that the literary activity of Prabhakara and, hence, of Kumarila
must have started before 638 AD.
Maheswara, the author of the commentary on the Nirukta, was a contemporary
of Harisvamin and both of them were associated with Skandasvamin (vide Kunjan
Rajas article in Krishnaswami Aiyangars commemoration volume). Maheswara
has cited a verse from the Shloka-vartika of Kumarila. The cited verse is:

52
Shankaras Date
This occurs in the Arthapatti Pariccheda of the Shloka-vartika. I have taken

this reference from Samskrit Vyakaran Ka Itihas.
The citation by Maheswara (a contemporary of Harisvamin) also confirms
the conclusion arrived at earlier with regard to Prabhakara being spoken of by
Harisvamin.
Prabhakara and Bharavi:
Prabhakara has, on two occasions, cited in Brihati the very famous
words of Bharavis Kiratarjuniya. This shows that Prabhakara and,
so, his senior contemporary Kumarila must have flourished after Bharavi. Bharavi
is not generally assigned any date before first century BC. So, it follows that
Prabhakara and Kumarila cannot have lived earlier than that.
Prabhakara and Dharmakirti:
Prabhakara was aware of Dharmakirti and instances of this have been
furnished by Salikanatha in the commentary on Brihati.
In the Niralamba section, Salikanatha writes:

(Hence, as all this that Dharmakirti has said is absurd, the author of the
gloss (on the Mimamsa-bhashya, that is, Prabhakara) has not expounded it. Thus,
what he has done is faultless.)
In Nayaviveka also, we are furnished with examples of how Prabhakara was
familiar with Dharmakirti. Therein it is written:

(Since the triad of grounds spoken of by Dharmakirti is weak, it has been
ignored by the Guru (Prabhakara).)
It follows that Prabhakara had chosen to treat Dharmakirtis triad of grounds
as insignificant.
Hence, Prabhakara cannot have flourished before Dharmakirti who was alive
in 7 century (vide Shankara and Dharmakirti). This point strengthens what was
concluded in the chapter Kumarila and Dharmakirti that Kumarila and Dharmakirti
were contemporaries.
th
53
Shankaras Date
Prabhakara and Bhartrhari:

Prabhakara has referred to the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari in his Brihati. For
instance, he has cited the words, of the Vakyapadiyas first
Kanda prefacing them with (It is said). It follows that Prabhakara and, hence,
his contemporary Kumarila must have lived after the 5th century, before which the
Vakyapadiya cannot be placed (vide Kumarila and Bhartrhari).
Summary:
To sum up:
(1) Kumarila and Prabhakara were contemporaries.
(2) Prabhakara should have flourished after first century BC as he has cited
Bharavi.
(3) Prabhakara could not have flourished before the 5th century AD as he
has referred to the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari.
(4) Prabhakara could not have flourished before the early part of the 7th
century AD as he was aware of Dharmakirti.
(5) Prabhakaras literary activity must have commenced before the fourth
decade of the seventh century due to Harisvamin citing Prabhakara in 638 AD.
Moreover, Harisvamins contemporary Maheswara has cited Kumarila.
2.10 Final Remarks on the Date of Kumarila

(1) Kumarila has cited Kalidasa, who cannot be assigned a period earlier than
the first century BC.
(2) Kumarilas contemporary Prabhakara has cited Bharavi, who is not usually
assigned a period earlier than the first century BC.
(3) He has attacked Samantabhadra, the Jain scholar who flourished only in
the AD period, after the first century.
(4) He has cited the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari, who did not flourish before
the fifth century AD.
(5) He has cited Vindhyavasin who flourished in the fifth century AD.
54
Shankaras Date
(6) He attacked Dinnaga, who flourished in the earlier half of the sixth
century AD.
(7) He has attacked Dharmakirti who flourished in the seventh century AD.
In the light of such considerations it can be seen that Kumarila certainly did
not live in the BC period. Further, he should have been alive even in the seventh
century AD.
As regards the other limit to Kumarilas date, we have the following:
(1) Akalanka, who flourished in the latter portion of the eighth century AD,
has attacked Kumarila.
(2) Kamalasila, who flourished in the middle and latter portion of the eighth
century AD, has cited Kumarila.
(3) Santarakshita, who flourished around the middle of the eighth century
AD, has virtually devoted a book to attack Kumarila.
(4) Kumarilas junior contemporary Prabhakara has been referred to by
Harisvamin in 638 AD and Kumarila has been cited by Maheswara who was a
contemporary of Harisvamin.
(5) Akalanka has attacked Karnakagomin, Karnakakomin has referred to
Umveka by name and Umveka has commented on the Shloka-vartika of Kumarila.
Since Akalanka flourished in the eighth century AD, it is improbable that Kumarila
could have flourished later than the seventh century AD.
Taking into consideration both citations by Kumarila as also references to
Kumarila, it appears that Kumarila should have been alive in the seventh century
AD.
2.11 Kumarila and Shankara

It is essentially undisputed that Shankara did not flourish before Kumarila.
Some points that confirm that Shankara could not have lived before Kumarila are:
(1) Shankaras disciple, Sureswara, has cited verses from the Shloka-vartika
of Kumarila in His Brihadaranyaka-bhasya-vartika. The cited verses are:
55
Shankaras Date

(2) In his Naishkarmya-siddhi and in his Brihadaranyaka-bhasya-vartika,
Sureswara has attacked the Brahmasiddhi of Mandana Mishra and Mandana has
cited Kumarila in Brahmasiddhi (For details vide the chapter, Shankara and
Mandana Mishra). Hence, the gap between Kumarilas Shloka-vartika and Sureswaras
works must be at least a couple of decades. Sureswara wrote Nsishkarmya-siddhi,
his first work, during Shankaras lifetime. Thus, Shankara and Sureswara cannot be
placed before Kumarila.
(3) Dharmakirti has attacked Kumarila (vide the chapter Kumarila and
Dharmakirti). Shankara and Sureswara have attacked Dharmakirti (vide the chapter
Shankara and Dharmakirti) but have never been attacked in the Dharmakirtis
works. Hence, Shankara and Sureswara cannot have flourished before Kumarila.
(4) In His Taittiriya-upanishad-bhashya, Shankara has said:

Thus, He has cited the opponents view that if one were to abstain from
desire-based and forbidden activity, exhaust Prarabdha by experience and perform
Nitya-karma (Scripturally ordained actions that are to be regularly performed) to
avoid incurring sin, then liberation will automatically result.
Explaining this portion, Sureswara has written in this his Taittiriya-bhasyavartika:

(The one desirous of Moksha must not engage in desire-based and forbidden
actions and must perform obligatory duties (Nitya and Naimitta) with a view to
56
Shankaras Date
avoiding sin. Thus has Karma been declared to be the means to Moksha by those
who regard themselves as Mimamsakas.)
So, it is clear that Shankara is attacking a Mimamsa view. The first verse is
from the Shloka-vartika of Kumarila. If Shankara had the said verse of the Shlokavartika in mind, then, He decidedly could not have predated Kumarila.
In the light of such considerations, it is certain that Shankara and Sureswara
could not have flourished before Kumarila. Since we have seen that Kumarila
should have been alive in the 7th century AD, Shankara could not have flourished
before that.
57
Shankaras Date
3. SHANKARA AND BUDDHISTS

3.1
Shankara and Dinnaga

Summary:
(1) Shankara has attacked the Buddhist logician Dinnaga.
(2) Dinnaga lived into the 6th century AD.
(3) Hence Shankara cannot have lived before 6th century AD.
Shankaras attack:
In His Brahmasutra-bhashya, Shankara has cited and attacked the Buddhist

logician Dinnaga. In the course of His exposition of the Brahmasutra ,
Shankara has cited a line from Dinnagas Alambanapariksha. He has written:

(They say, That form which is cognized within appears as if outside.)
From the use of and , it is clear that Shankara was quoting. This
point He Himself clarifies by further saying:

(As if external - Thus they use as if.)
That the citation is indeed of Dinnaga is beyond doubt because:
(1) The said passage is found in the available Sanskrit-reconstruction of the
Tibetan translation of Dinnagas work.
(2) The Buddhist scholar Kamalasila has, in his commentary on the Tattvasangraha of Santarakshita, explicitly attributed the portion concerned to Dinnaga
and given the details. He has written:

58
Shankaras Date
Interested readers can refer the Brahmasutra-bhashya as also the reconstructed

Sanskrit-work of Dinnaga.
In the light of all this, it is beyond doubt that Shankara has, in His Brahmasutrabhashya, cited and attacked the Buddhist logician Dinnaga.
Date of Dinnaga:
It has already been shown in the chapter Kumarila and Dinnaga that
Dinnaga flourished in the second half of the 5th century and first half of the 6th
century. Hence the arguments are not being repeated here.
Conclusion:
Since Shankara has cited and attacked Dinnaga who was alive in the first half
of the 6th century, it follows that Shankara cannot be assigned a date earlier than the
6th century AD.
3.2
Shankara and Dharmakirti

Summary:
(1) Shankara and Sureswara have explicitly referred to the Buddhist logician
Dharmakirti.
(2) Darmskirti flourished in the 7th century AD.
(3) Hence Shankara could not have flourished before the 7th century AD.
This argument is perhaps the most important, for Dharmakirti seems to be
the most recent writer referred to by Shankara.
Shankara, Sureswara, and Dharmakirti:
(1) Sureswara, the famous disciple of Shankara, has explicitly referred to
Dharmakirti in His Brihadaranyaka-bhasya-vartika. He has said:

59
Shankaras Date
Here, the reader would not have failed to notice that Sureswara has even
mentioned Dharmakirti by name.
(2) In His Upadesa-sahasri (Tattvamasi section), Shankara has cited a verse
from Dharmakirtis Pramanavartika (Pratyaksha Section). He has done this in
connection with His presentation of the Buddist objection. That Upadesa-sahasri is
definitely a work of Shankara is not doubted even by those who wish to critically
select the genuine works of Shankara. It has been cited by Sureswara himself and
attributed to Shankara (vide Naishkarmya-siddhi and commentary Chandrika). The
verse of Dharmakirti cited by Shankara has also been cited by Sureswara in his
Brihadaranyaka-bhashya-vartika. Shankaras quotation is:

This is a famous verse of Dharmakirti occuring in his Pramanavartika (vide
Pramanavartika, Tibetan Samskrit series).
It has been paraphrased by Kumarila and cited by Umveka, the Jain scholar,
Vidyananda, etc. Anandagiri, in his commentary on the Vartika of Sureswara,
specifies in this connection that the verse is indeed that of Dharmakirti. He writes:

The interested readers can compare the other verses of Sureswara in this
connection with the Pramanavartika and verify, as I have done, that Sureswara has
cited and attacked Dharmakirti.
(3) In his Brahmasutra-bhasya (2.2.28.), Shankara has said:

This is a direct paraphrase of and attack on a passage from Dharmakirtis
Pramanaviniscaya. There, Dharmakirti has said:

60
Shankaras Date
Vacaspati Mishra, in his commentary Bhamati on the Brahmasutra-bhasya,

has cited this very passage of Dharmakirti as being attacked. This confirms that in
His Brahmasutra-bhasya, Shankara has paraphrased and attacked Dharmakirtis view.
(4) In His Brahmasutra-bhasya (2.2.18), Shankara has said:

Here, the reference to
statement:
is with reference to Dharmakitris famous
This has been explicitly brought out by Vacaspati, in his Bhamati. In the
commentary Ratnaprabha, also this point has been brought out in a similar context.
Fortunately for us, some of the original works of Dharmakirti such as
Pramanavartika and Vadanyaya are available and so there is absolutely no room for
doubt that Shankara and Sureswara have attacked the Buddhist logician Dharmakirti.
Apart from direct comparison with Dharmakirtis works, even from the attack it is
clear that the Dharmakirti attacked was a Buddist logician. That his name was
Dharmakitri is obvious from his having been explicitly named in the attack. That
he was a famous writer is clear from the fact that he has been quoted and attacked
by various writers and defended by Buddhist authors. There is no confusion about
the identity of this famous Buddhist logician Dharmakirti. Hence, even if we had
not been fortunate enough to have his works available with us, the identification
could still have been made.
Date of Dharmakirti:
If Dharmakirti had been an insignificant writer then we might have had very
little information about him and his works. This, however, is not the case. Writers
of the calibre of Shankara, Sureswara, Kumarila, Umveka, Vacaspati and Udayana,
besides Buddhists and Jain writers like Dharmottara, Karnakagomin, Santarakshita,
Kamalasila, Akalanka and Vidyananda have spoken of Dharmakirti and his views.
This apart, we have details about him furnished by Tibetan and Chinese writers.
We shall now examine some of the factors that serve to settle Dharmakirtis date.
(1) From Tibetan sources, we learn that Dharmakirti was a contemporary of
Srong btan-gampo. Srong btan-gampo lived for around eighty years and ruled in
61
Shankaras Date
Tibet in the 7th century AD. He married a Chinese princess, Kong-cho, who came
to Tibet in 639 AD. This kings period can be known even from Tibetan works such
as Bai Durya dkar-po, which have been cited in Tibetan Grammar by L Soma de
Koros. Wassielief may also be referred. The date of the Chinese princess married by
Srong btan-gampo is discernible from Chinese sources.
Since Dharmakirti was a contemporary of a king who flourished in the 7th
century AD, it follows that Dharmakirti should also have been alive in the 7th century.
(2) From the Tibetan record of Lama Taranatha, we learn that Dharmapala
was a teacher of Dharmakirti. Hieun Tsang, the Chinese traveller who journeyed in
the period 629 to 645 AD, has written that he was taught by Silabhadra and that
the latter was a direct disciple of Dharmapala. Since Silabhadra, the disciple of
Dharmapala, was definitely alive in the first half of the 7th century, it follows that
Dharmakirti, Dharmapalas pupil, should also have been alive in the 7th century AD.
(3) The Chinese traveller I-Tsing who journeyed in the period 671 to 695 AD
writes about great Buddhist scholars: They are to be likened to the sun and the
moon or are to be regarded as dragon and elephant. Such were Nagarjuna, Deva,
Asvagosha of an early age, Vasubandhu, Asanga, Sanghabhadra, Bhavaviveka in
the middle ages and Gina, Dharmapala, Dharmakirti, Silabhadra, Simhakandra,
Sthiramathi, Gunamati, Pragnagupta, Gunaprabha, Ginaprabha (or Paramaprabha)
of late years (vide translation of I-Tsings writing by J.Takakusu). By speaking of
Dharmakirti as a recent teacher, I-Tsing has shown that Dharmakirti must have
lived well after the dawn of the Christian era. To confirm, this let us consider the
names given in the set of recent teachers. We find the name of Silabhadra. He
taught Hieun Tsang, whose travels were in the period 629-645 AD. Dharmapala is
mentioned. He was the teacher of Silabhadra and so cannot be placed earlier than
the 6th century. Gunamati was definitely later than Vasubandhu, the author of
Abhidharma Kosa. Vasubandhu died around 480 AD and so, Gunamati should have
flourished after the 5th century. Sthiramati was a contemporary of Gunamati. In
connection with scholars associated with the Nalanda University, Hieun Tsang has
spoken of Gunamati and Sthiramati as associated with the Nalanda University. In
that context, Hieun Tsang has also mentioned Prabhamitra. Prabhamitra died in
China in 633 AD (Vide History of Indian Logic by Mahamahopadhyaya Satish
Chandra). Thus, the recent teachers should have flourished at least in the 6th
century AD. Hence, Dharmakirti cannot be placed before the 6th Century AD.
(4) Dharmakirtis Pramanavartika is an elaboration of the contents of the
Pramanasamuccaya of Dinnaga. Pramanasamuccaya was one of the last or perhaps
the last of the books of Dinnaga, who died around 540 AD (Vide Kumarila and
Dinnaga). Hence, Dharmakirti cannot be placed before the 6th century AD. In fact,
the record of lama Taranatha tells us that Dharmakirti was taught logic by lswara
62
Shankaras Date
Sena who was a follower of Dinnaga. This would suggest that Dharmkirti should
have lived into the 7th century AD.
(5) Dharmakirti has referred to the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari. This
Bhartrhari did not flourish beore the 5th century (Vide Kumarila and Bhartrhari).
Hence, Dharmakirti could not have lived before 5th century AD.
(6) In his Nyayavartika-tatparpya-tika, Vacaspati Mishra explicitly states that
he was writing that book to answer the attacks of recent ones () headed by
Dinnaga. In his work, Vacaspati has repeatedly attacked Dinnaga and Dharmakirti.
Thus, Vacaspati regarded Dharmakirti as a moderner. Vacaspati flourished in the
9th century AD. Hence, Dharmakirti must have flourished well after the dawn of
the Christian era.
(7) Dharmakirti has clearly criticised Udyotakara, the author of the Nyayabhasya-vartika. One example of this is the following passage of his in Nyayabindu:

More examples can be readily given. A study of the Vadanyaya of Dharmakirti
with the commentary of Santarakshita makes it amply clear that Dharmakirti strongly
attacked Udyotakaras Nyaya-bhasya-vartika. So, Dharmakirti cannot have flourished
before Udyotakara. Let us now turn to setting limits on the date of Udyotakara, for
that will fix the period earlier than which Dharmakirti could not have lived.
(a) Udyotakara has referred to a Buddhist philosopher who remarked that
the three parts of syllogism, as defined by Akshapada, were not as ingenious as they
appeared. In his commentary, Vacaspati has pointed out that the philosopher in
question was Vasubandhu. Udyotakaras Nyaya-bhasya-vartika is:

(1.1.37)
Vacaspatis Tika on it is:

Hence, Udyotakara must have come after Vasubandu, who flourished in the
5 century AD (Vide Kumarila and Dinnaga). Since Udyotakara has attacked
Vasubandhu who died around 480 AD and since Dharmakirti has attacked Udyotakara,
it is unreasonable to place Dharmakirti before the latter half of the 6th century.
th
63
Shankaras Date
(b) Udyotakara has attacked Nagarjuna, the author of the Madhyamika

Karikas. He says:
(1.1.37)

Nagarjuna has indeed defined, in Pramanavidhvamsa, an example as a place
in which is decisively shown the relationship between the reason and its invariable
companion, the predicate. Thus, Udyotakara and, hence, Dharmakirti must have
flourished after Nagariuna, who flourished in the AD period (Vide Gaudapadas
References).
(c) Udyotakara must have lived after Vatsyayana since he has written a
commentary on the Nyaya-bhasya of Vatsyayana. Udyotakara and consequently
Dharmakirti cannot thus be placed centuries before the dawn of the Christian era
(See further Kumarila and Dinnaga).
(d) Udyotakara has repeatedly attacked Dinnaga in his Nyaya-bhasya-vartika.
This point is so clear from Udyotakaras work that giving examples here will be
superfluous. Dinnaga lived till around 540 AD, as seen earlier.
In the light of these points pertaining to Udyotakara, it is discernible that
Dharmakitri who attacked Udyotakara, who in turn attacked Dinnaga, should have
flourished not earlier than the end of the 6th century AD. His living into the 7th
century thus seems very reasonable.
Objections:
Some objections have been raised by some against taking it that Dharmakirti
was alive in the 7th century AD. We shall consider them and see if they are tenable.
(1) Banabhatta was a court poet of Harshavardhana, who flourished in the
first half of the 7th century. Hieun Tsang had been to the court of Harsha. In his
work Harsha-charita, Banabhatta has referred to the Vasavadatta of Subandhu
(Vide Kumarila and Prabhakara). In Vasavadatta, Subandhu points out:
In his commentary, Sivarama has said that the reference is to a work of

Dharmakirti. He has said:

64
Shankaras Date
Since Bana of the 7th century has cited Vasavadattaof Subandhu, who in
turn has cited Dharmakirti, it follows that Dharmakirti cannot have flourished later
than the first half of the 6th century AD.
This argument will not hold because:
(a) The given passage of Subandhu nowhere mentions Dharmkirti by name
nor does it contain any explicit reference to Dharmakirtis work. In fact, a straight
translation is merely decked with ornaments, as an assembly of Buddhists is
decked with the ornament. Thus, no direct reference to Dharmakirti is there.
(b) Sivarama, the commentator, may very well feel that there is a veiled
reference to Dharmakirti but it must be borne in mind that Sivarama was just an
ordinary scholar of the 18th century. It is unjustifiable to expect a scholar of 18th
century to be able to know with certainty what was not even sharply alluded to in a
work of not later than 7th century AD. Sivaramas was a conjecture and there is no
reason at all why much weightage must be given to his attempt at reading the mind
of Subandhu.
(2) Akalanka has attacked Dharmakirti. One view is that Akalanka was alive
around the middle of the 7th century. Hence, Dharmakirti must have lived much earlier.
(a) This argument will not work because Akalanka flourished only in the 8th
century. The view that he flourished in the middle of the 7th century is not sound
(This aspect has been discussed in the chapter, Kumarila and Akalanka).
(b) Even those who have advanced the view that Akalanka was alive around
the middle of the 7th century have no proof to show that he did not do much of his
writing in the latter portion of the 7th century. Hence, even in such a case, there is
nothing to preclude Dharmakirti having been alive in the 7th century. In Kumarila
and Akalanka, it has already been shown that Akalanka lived not in the 7th century
but in 8th century AD.
We shall now consider the view that Dharmakirti flourished only in the
second half of the 7th century. The primary arguments advanced in this connection
are as follows:
(1) I-Tsing who travelled in 671 to 695 AD has mentioned Dharmakirti, while
Hieun Tsang who travelled in 629-645 AD has not. This implies that Dharmakirti
must have been rather young and comparatively unknown in Hieun Tsangs time.
Hence, he must have been alive in the latter portion of the 7th century.
This argument is not convincing because:
65
Shankaras Date
(a) Hieun Tsang and I-Tsing have not explicitly spoken of Dinnaga (Vide
Beals translation of Hieun Tsangs travel records and Takakusus translation of ITsings travel records). Dinnaga flourished before the 7th century and undoubtedly
he was a famous Buddhist writer. Thus, if we go by the absence of mention
argument then we will either have to assume that Dinnaga lived after I-Tsing or
that he was not a famous writer. Anyone who has read about Dinnaga and his
works knows that both these statements are erroneous. This shows that the absence
of mention argument is weak.
(b) According to Hieun Tsang, his teacher Silabhadra was quite young when
he met Dharmapala. The Chinese traveller also states that Silabhadra was 30 years
old when Silabhadha met Dharmapala. If Hieun Tsang regards 30 years as young
then, by his standards, I suppose around 50 or more alone would be regarded as
making one grown up. When Hieun Tsang met Silabhadra, the latter was certainly
not young. So, it follows that Dharmapala must have been alive in the 6th century
AD. We learn that Dharmapala had a short life. Hence, his disciple Dharmakirti
should have also been alive in the second half of the sixth century. This counters
the argument that Dharmakirti was very young around 650 AD.
(c) Unless Taranatha has made a mistake about Iswara Krishna (not the
author of the Sankhya-karikas) having taught Dharmakirti, we must assume that
Dharmakirti lived in the latter portion of the 6th century. Hence, the argument that
Dharmakirti was very young around 650 AD is unsound.
(d) We have already seen that Kumarila has attacked Dharmakitri, as also viceversa. Kumarilas works cannot be placed later than the first half of the 7th century
because of the reference of Harisvamin to Prabhakara (contemporary of Kumarila)
in 638 AD (Vide Kumarila and Prabhakara). Hence, there is no question of
Dharmakirti being unknown in the first half of the 7th century.
(e) I-Tsing has made no statement that Dharmakirti was his contemporary.
Further, it is impossible for all persons listed by him as recent teachers to have been
his contemporaries.
(2) Dharmakirti was a contemporary of Srong btan-gampo who lived into the
second half of the 7th century AD. Hence, Dharmakirti flourished only in the second
half of the seventh century AD.
This argument is not convincing because Srong btan-gampo was also alive
in the first half of the 7th century and so even if Dharmakirti had died in the middle
of the 7th century then also the fact of his having been a contemporary of the
famous Stron btan-gampo would stand unaffected.
66
Shankaras Date
From these considerations, it should be clear that saying that Dharmakirti

was hardly well known or was very young in the first half of the 7th century is not
convincing.
The upshot of all the points is that Dharmakirti was alive in the 7th century
and, at any rate, did not flourish earlier that the second half of the 6th century.
Conclusion:
Shankara and Sureswara have cited, paraphrased and attacked Dharmakirti
who flourished in the 7th century but Dharmakirti has, in his turn, not at all
referred or responded to Shankara and Sureswara. Hence, Shankara cannot be
assigned a period earlier than the 7th century AD.
67
Shankaras Date
4. SIXTH CENTURY BC THEORY

4.1
Kashmir Temple
Some advance the argument that the temple on Shankaracharya hill in

Srinagar (Kashmir) is dedicated to Shankaracharya. It is pointed out that according
to Rajatarangini (list of Kings of Kashmir) of Kalhana this temple was built by
Gopaditya. That king ruled in the latter part of the 5th Century BC. Hence, Shankara
must have lived before that. We shall now consider this argument.
(1) Rajatarangini does not at all speak of any king building a temple for
Shankaracharya. Regarding the temple built by Gopaditya this is what the
Rajatarangini says:

(Having founded Jyesteswara on the Gopa hill the Brahmanas born in the
land of the Aryas were induced to accept the Gopa Agrahara by that pious king.)
It is clear that temple founded was a Siva temple and further, at that time,
the hill was referred to not as Shankaracharya hill but as Gopa hill.
(2) Some, who, unlike many other advocates of the 6th century BC view,
accept the correct period of Ashoka (namely 3rd Century BC), have advanced the
argument that a temple in memory of Shankaracharya was built by Jalauka, the son
of Ashoka and his successor in Kashmir. Here again they point to the
Rajatarangini. All I wish to say is that the reference is totally misleading. This is
what the Rajatarangini says about the temple founded by Jalauka:

(While he was installing Jyesta Rudra in Srinagar he realized that it could not,
without the Sodara spring, vie with the shrine of Nandisa.)
We are also told that a spring formed near this temple and satisfied the king.
Here again it is clear that the temple built was a Siva temple. There is absolutely no
mention here of Shankaracharya, or a hill named after Him.
68
Shankaras Date
(3) Even today one can see that the temple, on what is now called
Shankaracharya hill, is purely a Shiva temple and contains only a Shivalinga. The
Shankaracharya idol that one finds nowadays in the region was installed by the
present pontiff of the Dwaraka math and must not be confused with the ancient
temple being considered here. A photograph of the said installation by the present
pontiff of Dwakara can be seen in the book Dwarka and Sharada Peeth published
by the Shri Navabharti Office of the Dwaraka math. As regards the temple we are
speaking of, photographs of the temple as also of the sanctum sanctorum can be
seen in the book Saint of Sringeri in Sacred India published by the Sringeri
Jagadguru Sanatana Dharma Vidya Samiti. The interested reader can see these
photographs and ascertain for himself that the temple in question is a Shiva Temple.
This is in case the reader has not been to Srinagar as otherwise these proofs should
not be necessary.
(4) This is what the Gazetteer of Kashmir and Ladakh (book first published
in 1890 by the Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta) says:
The rocky eminence called the Takht-i-Sulaiman (Throne of Solomon) is
situated rather more than a mile South East of the townThe hill rises to the height
of 6240 feet above the level of the surrounding plain and overlooks the town of
Srinagar, which spreads away to the opposite but lower eminence of the Hari parbat,
in contradistinction to which it is sometimes called by the Hindus Sir-i-Shur or Shivas
head. It is also known by the name Sankarachar or Shankaratsari or it may have
been so named from Sankara and Chacra two kings who reigned in Kashmir, AD
945-6.
Where is the mention of this being a temple originally named after
Shankaracharya?
(5) In the book Buddhism in Kashmir and Ladakh by J.N. Gankar and
P.N. Gankar it is said, One ruler of the period who prominently stands out for his
patronage of Shaivism and the Brahmanas was Gopaditya, who built a new temple,
Jyestheshvara, on the Sankaracharya hill in Srinagar. Earlier a Shiva Shrine known
as Jyestarudra had been founded here by Ashokas son and successor Jalauka.
(6) In the book History of Buddhism in Kashmir by Dr. Sarla Khosla, it is
said as follows:
The Shankaracharya temple
oldest temple of the valley in the Sandimana Parvata (now called Takhati-Sulaiman)According to local tradition it was built in the 3rd century BC by
Ashokas son Jalauka.
69
Shankaras Date
(7) Vigne identifies this with the shrine of Shiva Jyesteswara on the Gopadri,
built by Gopaditya (vide Travels in Kashmir, Ladakh and Ishardu by F.R. Vigne,
published in 1841).
(8) The report of the Archaeological and research department, Jammu and
Kashmir State, 1909, does not say that this is a Shankaracharya temple. It merely
says Temple on Shankaracharya or Takhi-i-Sulaiman.
(9) In See India, Kashmir issued on behalf of the Tourist division, Ministry
of Transport and Communications, New Delhi, we have The temple of Shiva at
the summit of the hill was erected on the site of an older temple built in about
200 BC by Jalauka, a son of the Emperor Asoka. The temple was rebuilt by the 6th
Century A.DIt was substantially repaired by king Lalitaditya who reigned in the
8th Century. The plinth and the low wall enclosing the temple date back to this
time. The rest of the present superstructure is, however, more recent.
In the light of all this, it can be seen that the use of this temple to fix the date
of Shankara in the BC period is unwarranted.
70
Shankaras Date
4.2
Nepal Vamsavali
Kota Venkatachelum was the first to try to establish in the light of the Nepal
Vamsavali that Shankaras advent was in the sixth century BC (in 509 BC), doing
so on the basis of the claim therein that Shankaracharya visited Nepal during the
reign of Vrsadeva Varma, the 18th king of the Suryavamsi dynasty (vide Kota
Venkatachelums Chronology of Nepal History Reconstructed, 1953, page 55).
Subsequently, several other advocates of the sixth-century period such as Nataraja
Aiyer and Lakshminarasimha Sastri (The Traditional Age of Sri Sankaracharya and
the Maths, pages 32-33, 1962) have unquestioningly echoed Venkatachelum. The
Nepal Vamsavali (genealogy of the kings of Nepal) has been translated and
published in a book titled History of Nepal edited by Daniel Wright. It describes
the war of the British with the Nepalese and events up to less than 200 years from
now. Hence, it is recent composition. Another version of the Nepal Vamsavali,
whose list of kings is akin to that of the previously-mentioned one, has been
published in the Indian Antiquary (vide Indian Antiquary, Vol. XIII, 1884). This
(which Kota Venkatachelum has referred to) is also less than 300 years old, as the
description extends to fairy recent times. In the sequel, both the versions of the
Nepal Vamsavali are considered and it is demonstrated that the Nepal Vamsavali
definitely cannot be relied upon to fix Shankaras period.
(1) The Vamsavali states that the Gopala dynasty (cowherds formed this)
started in the time of Sri Krishna, some of whose companions stayed back when
Krishna came to Nepal. He came to help His grandson to leave with the daughter
of Danasura and also to let out water from the valley. The Gopala dynasty
consisted of 8 kings who reigned for 521 years. It was followed by the Ahir dynasty
which consisted of 3 kings. The next dynasty was the Kirata dynasty. In the reign
of the second king, the astrologers announced that the Kali Yuga had commenced.
In the reign of the 6th king Humati, the Pandavas were exiled to the forests. This
means that the Kali Yuga started years before the death of Krishna. This is completely
opposed to Indian traditional evidences.
(2) The 7th king of the Kirata dynasty was Jitedasti. This king went to help
the Pandavas in the war against the Kauravas in accordance with the suggestion of
Arjuna. Here we are told of a strange event. During the reign of this king, Buddha
went to Nepal. This makes Krishna a contemporary of Buddha! If we take Krishnas
death to be in the 31st century BC as is traditionally accepted, then Buddha must
have lived in the 31st century BC At this stage it may be asked if there is anything
to show that this Buddha was the same as the Gautama Buddha we know of. The
answer is in the affirmative. The Vamsavali tells us:
(a) That the said Buddha was from Kapilavastu. This is the birth place of
Gautama Buddha.
71
Shankaras Date
(b) That Ananda was the disciple of the said Buddha. This also tallies with
the life of Gautama Buddha who indeed had a close disciple named Ananda as is
well-known.
(c) That the said Buddha was referred to a Sakya-simha. Some have tried to
point out that nowhere is Gautama Buddha referred to as Sakya-simha but this is
incorrect. The Amara-kosha, the authoritative, traditionally-memorised, ancient
Sanskrit lexicon, says:

Thus, we learn that the son of Suddhodana, Gautama, was also known as
Sakya-simha. His mother was Maya. In Rajatarangini also, Buddha is referred to as
Sakya-simha.
It is not in dispute that Gautama Biddha belonged to the Sakya clan. Hence,
the epithet Sakya-simha or lion amongst the Sakyas can logically apply to Gautama
Buddha. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the Buddha-caritra of
Aswagosha speaks of Gautama Buddha as Sakya-rishabha or bull amongst the Sakyas.
This apart there are references to Gautama Buddha in Buddhist texts as Sakyamuni or the Sakya-sage.
In the light of these facts, the contention that Gautama Buddha was never
referred to as Sakya-simha is unacceptable and he who is impartial cannot say that
the Buddha referred to in the Vamasavali as a contemporary of Krishna was not
Gautama Buddha.
(3) Since we are told that Krishna came to Nepal prior to the start of the
Gopala dynasty and that the Mahabharata war took place during the reign of the 7th
king of the Kirata dynasty, it follows that Krishna must have lived well over 500
years. The Gopala dynasty itself ruled for 521 years. This lifespan for Krishna is
totally opposed to the evidence of the Mahabharata and the Puranas.
(4) In the reign of the 14th king of the Kirata dynasty mentioned earlier,
Ashoka came to Nepal. Even assuming that each king ruled for 50 years we note
that Ashoka must have come to Nepal around 350 years after Krishna. This means
that Ashokas period will be around 3150-350=2800 BC which is patently absurd
and is not accepted even by those who have attempted to push back the dates of
historical personalities. It is quite clear the reference is to Ashoka the Maurya. This
is because the Vamsavali gives us information about this Ashoka which we know
as pertaining to Ashoka, the Maurya.
72
Shankaras Date
It says:
(a) He was the king of Pataliputra.
(b) He believed in the teaching of the Buddha.
(c) He built chaityas.
Kota Vekatachelum has chosen to discard the portion of the Vamsavali about
the visit of Asoka, averring, It is a big forgery and deserves to be wiped off from
the Vamsavali (Chronology of Nepal Reconstructed, page 53, 1953). It may be
pointed out that if one takes the liberty of rejecting whatever is inconvenient then
there should be no objection to one rejecting the reference to Adi Shankara also as
forgery. If the Vamsavali is to serve to fix His date then it must stand on its own
strength. It cannot be said, We know from other sources that Shankara lived in 6th
century BC and so we accept the evidence of the Vamsavali. We reject the part
about Ashoka because we know from other sources that his date is something else.
To this, if one were to counter, We know from other sources that Shankara was
born in AD and hence we reject that part of the Vamsavali as forgery, what is to
be the conclusion? The argument will then have to be confined to the other
sources that fix Shankaras date and the Vamsavali will get eliminated from the
picture, as holders of both views find some portion or other of the Vamsavali
unlikable. Those who rely on the Vamsavali cannot try to protect it with the armour
of other source. Either it stands up to scrutiny or it does not.
(5) Shankara is said to have come to Nepal in the reign of Vrsadeva Varman.
This king was the 18th king of the Suryavamsi dynasty. The periods given for the reigns
of the kings of this dynasty are unbelievably long. To analyse the situation, we can
consider the reigns of 10 kings of the dynasty.
Number in dynasty
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Reign in years
61
82
61
78
76
75
76
88
61
81
73
Shankaras Date
Let us assume that Chandravarman, the 2nd king, came to the throne at the
age of 20 itself (I am assuming this to enable us to allot him a long reign as done in
the Vamsavali). Let us further assume that in our computations we will take it that
the crown prince is born only when the king is 40 years old. This is no doubt
unrealistic but the results will only be worse (for those relying on the Nepal Vamsavali
to assign a BC period for Shankara) if an earlier birth of the crown prince is assumed,
for, then, there will greater overlap between the lives of the father and son. With
this background, we arrive at the following table.
King No
Age at which he
is crowned
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
20
41
83
104
142
178
213
249
297
318
Reign
Age at which
crown prince is
born
Age at death
Age of crown
prince at the
time of Kings
death
61
82
61
78
76
75
76
88
61
81
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
81
123
144
182
218
253
289
337
358
399
41
83
104
142
178
213
249
297
318
359
Kota Ventatachellum has chosen to say our ancestors of 2000 years back
were able to live from 130 years up to even 200 years (History of Nepal
Reconstructed, page 7, 1953). It, however, appears here that lifespans of well over
200 years would be needed! Anybody who is logical can easily see that the lengthy
lifespans required are absurd.
Lest anyone get a doubt as to whether the periods mentioned in the
Vamsavali for the reigns might actually refer to lifespans, it is necessary to note
that the first king Bhumivarman is said to have been crowned in 1389 Kali era
while the 23rd king Vasantadeva was crowned in 2800 Kali era. This gives a period
of 1411 years of reign for 22 kings. Thus, the average period per kings reign (and
not life) is 64 years. Noting that the average reign per king from the 13th to the 22nd
is, as per the Vamsavali, 58 years, we note that the reigns of over 64 years for the
initial kings is quite in order, as we have assumed. It follows that if we accept the
Vamsavali then we will have to assume that Nepalese kings, even in the time of
Shankaracharya (whose lifespan was 32 years) lived for around 400 years! Even the
Puranas do not generally specify such long periods for the kings of Kali Yuga!
(6) The Vamsavali is full of silly and unbelievable stories and it is very
difficult to find out which person referred to (other than the kings, I suppose) is a
74
Shankaras Date
historical entity and who is not. For instance, consider the reign of Varadeva who
was the 8th king of Thakuri dynasty, which followed the Suryavamsi dynasty. This
king is said to have been ruling in 3623 Kali era, i.e., 521 AD. In his reign, one
Gorakhnath is said to have come to Nepal and captured the Nagas. As a result of
this, there was drought for 12 years. With the aid of one Bandhudatta, the king had
Karkotaka Naga freed. The Naga was carried in a pen and used to carry the pair
over rivers and bad roads! The aim of the journey was to bring Aryavalokiteswara
to Nepal to bring rain. The latter appeared in the form of a bee that the king should
have caught. Unfortunately, the king went off to sleep! When the bee came for the
third time, Bandhudatta woke up the king and so that entity was brought to Nepal,
as a result of which it rained. I leave it to the discerning readers to guess whether
the Gorakhnath who caused the drought was a historical personality or not.
(7) The Shankaracharya who came to Nepal in the reign of Vrsadeva Varman
is said to be the 7th incarnation of the great reformer. In His first 6 incarnations, He
is said to have been defeated by Buddhists in debate and burnt! When then should
we assign the first Shankaracharya? Not even the protagonists of the 509 BC theory
would like to place Him more than 200 years earlier, as will be necessary if we
accept the Vamsavali. This apart, the description given of the 7th Shankaracharya is
ridiculous. Murdering people, cutting off tufts and sacred threads, making male and
female ascetics marry, converting householders to Bhikshus and then forcing them
to marry Bhikshunis (Buddhist females who have renounced) and ordering animal
sacrifice are some of the activities of His Nepal, according to the Vamsavali! It is
said that the royal family was so impressed that the next king was named Shankaradeva in honour of Shankaracharya!
(8) In the reign of Varadeva (521 AD), another incarnation of Shankaracharya
is said to have visited Nepal. A Lama urinated in front of Him and Shankara abused
him in vulgar language. At this, the Lama ripped open his body to demonstrate his
internal purity and asked Shankara to do the same! The latter got frightened,
metamorphosed into a kite and tried to fly away. The Lama pierced the kites shadow
with a spear and transfixed Shankara. Then be brought down Shankara and placed
a stone over Him! Anyone can see the utterly nonsensical nature of the description.
The previous Shankara was the 7th incarnation and this one is said to have been a
Brahmin incarnation of the previous Shankara. Was this one Adi Shankara or the
previous one or the first incarnation? It is anybodys guess. The author of the Vamsavali
apparently had a fertile imagination and expected his readers too to be like him!
(9) It is well known that the Vikarama era starts in 57 BC while the
Salivahana (Saka) era starts in 78 AD. This means that there is a gap of around 140
years between the two eras. The Nepal Vamsavali, however, has something else to
say. According to it, the Vikrama era was started by the king Vikramaditya who
came to Nepal in the reign of Amsuvarman of the Thakuri dynasty. Amsuvarman
ruled for 68 years and was crowned in 3000 Kali era or 101 BC. He was followed
75
Shankaras Date
by Kritavaraman who ruled for 87 years and was, in turn, followed by Bhimarjuna,
who ruled for 93 rears. The next king was Nandadeva, during whose reign the
Salivahana era was introduced. Even if we assume that the Salivahana era commenced
in the beginning of this kings reign, then also the gap between the Vikrama and
Salivahana era becomes 93+87+(68-101+57) = 204 years. The figures within the
brackets yield the period to be accounted for in the reign of Amsuvarman. It is clear
that the Nepalese Vamasavali is unable to even record two eras correctly!
Further proof for this comes from its statement that Viradeva, who succeeded
Nandadeva, was crowned in Kali era 3400, i.e., 299 AD. Nandadeva ruled only for
25 years and was preceded by Bhimarjuna who ruled for 93 years. Before him was
Kritavarman who ruled for 87 years. Thus, the end of Amsuvarmans reign and
start of Kritavarmans reign was in 299-25-93-97=94 AD. The Vamsavali gives
Amsuvarman a reign of 68 years. Hence, the Vikrama era could not have been
started before 94-68=26 AD (which is quite wrong, for it started in 57 BC). If on
the other hand, we wish to maintain that his crowning was in 101 BC then he could
not have ruled till 94 AD (for he ruled only for 68 years).
(10) The Nepalese Vamsavali assigns Amsuvarmans crowning to 3000 Kali
or 101 BC, as mentioned earlier. The Chinese traveller Hieun Tsangs travels were
from 629-645 AD. He states that a learned king called Amsuvarman ruled Nepal
shortly before his visit. Since there are no two Amsuvarmans encountered in the
Vamsavali, the possibility of confusion does not arise. This evidence also serves to
demolish the credibility of the dates and events described in the Vamsavali.
(11) The Nepalese Vamsavali makes Sivadeva Varman the 27th king of the
Suryavamsi dynasty. Between him and Amsuvarman, the first king of the Thakuri
dynasty, are listed 4 kings who ruled totally for 176 years. However, an inscription
of Sivadeva Varman bearing his name (and found on a slab of hard sandstone fixed
in a wall, near a bell, at Budda Nilakanth, near the Sivapuri hill, five miles north of
Kathmandu) refers to Amsuvarman. The latter is appreciated by the king for
overcoming the kings enemies. Thus, while the Vamsavali separates Sivadeva Varman
and Amusuvarman by well over a century, the inscription establishes that they were
contemporaries and, thus, exposes the inaccuracy of the Vamsavali.
(12) The Vamsavali contained in the book History of Nepal even describes
the war between the British and the Nepalese erroneously. How can a Vamasavali
which is incapable of recording even a recent event correctly be relied upon in matters
of the distant past?
Conclusion:
To sum up, the Nepal Vamsavali is replete with inaccuracies and absurdities
and is worthless for determining the period of Shankara.
76
Shankaras Date
4.4
Math Records
4.4.1 Introductory remarks on Math records

Those advocating that Shankara lived centuries before Christ have primarily
relied on the records of some Maths. Punyashlokamanjari, Gururatnamalika and
Sushama (the commentary on it) and Guruparampara-stotra are important records
of the Kanchi Math. The Punyashlokamanjari gives the dates and some details of
the pontiffs of the Kanchi Math starting from Shankara up to the Maths 55th head.
Its author/compiler was Sadasiva Bodhendra Saraswathi, the 56th pontiff. The
Punyashlokamanjari conveys (in its first verse after the invocation and prelude) that
Shankara disappeared into His own essence in 477 BC (2625 years after the start of
, In
the Kali Yuga in 3102 BC) at the age of 32 (
the katapayadi notation = 32 and = 2625). It follows that Shankara was
born in 509 BC (477+32). The Gururatnamalika is a composition comprising 87
verses about the Advaitic Gurus from the Supreme to Shankara and from Shankara
to the Kanchi Maths 57th head, Paramasivendra Saraswathi (II). Its author is
supposedly Sadasiva Brahmendra, the consummate Yogi and Jivanmukta and
disciple of Paramasivendra Saraswathi. As per the concluding verse of the
Gururatnamalika, the author was prompted to pen this work by Atma Bodhendra,
the Maths 58th pontiff (

).
Sushama, the detailed commentary on the Gururatnamalika with citations from
Shankara Vijayas, Punyashlokamanjari, etc., is stated to be authored by another
Atma Bodhendra, a disciple of Mahadevendra Saraswathi (III), the 61st head of the
). The GuruparamparaKanchi Math (
th
stotra of Mahadevendra Saraswathi (IV), the 65 pontiff, provides the names of
and venerates the Gurus of the Kanchi Math up to Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi
(V), the 64th pontiff (who reigned from 1813 to 1851). As far as the Dwaraka Math
data are concerned, a book titled Vimarsha, authored by Rajarajeswara Shankara
Ashrama, the 73rd pontiff of the Math, and published in 1899, and a copper-plate
inscription (cited in Vimarsha) in the form of a submission by King Sudhanva to
Shankara are relied upon.
Some have dismissed Math records in favour of a BC date for Shankara as
unworthy of scrutiny. I am, however, of the view that they deserve to be analysed
and corroborated or invalidated. Hence, I would like to investigate the records
mentioned above. Before proceeding, I wish to emphasise, with all the emphasis at
my command, that it is not at all my intention to cast any aspersion on any Math or
the pontiffs thereof. My concern is just with the records, whose claims I propose to
examine. The reason for my making such a statement at the outset itself is that I
am aware that my efforts may be misconstrued as an affront to Maths or their
pontiffs.
77
Shankaras Date
A possible objection that may be raised at this juncture is that if I intend to

make an objective analysis of Math records, I should have specified even those of
the Puri and Sringeri Maths. The reasons for my not doing so are as follows:
(1) With due respect to the Puri Math, I was unable to locate anything more
of value than a long list of over 140 pontiffs in favour of the Maths claim that
Shankara lived centuries before the dawn of the Christian era. Analysis of this
Guruparampara was hardly possible since, unlike in the case of the Kanchi Math
records, details of the lives of the pontiffs were unavailable and one essentially had
to make do with names. Consider for example the listing of Sridhara as the 11th
pontiff starting from Shankara. If it were claimed that this Sridhara is the same as
the Sridhara who penned esteemed commentaries on the Vishnu and Bhagavatha
Puranas, then, as the latter Sridhara lived in the 14th /15th century, it would follow
that Shankara could not have lived in the BC period. If, however, the Sridhara of
the list is just someone else, his date would be unknown and would not support or
invalidate a BC period for Shankara.
Moreover, the Guruparampara of the Puri Math is around double that of
the Dwaraka and Kanchi Maths, which too subscribe to the view that Shankara
lived centuries before Christ, and around four times that of the Sringeri Math.
Since there is great inconsistency in the sizes of the Paramparas, using the number
of pontiffs to estimate Shankaras date is problematic. The contention that the Puri
Math list is very long because householder-turned Samnyasis were pontiffs and so
the reign of each pontiff was relatively small is questionable. This is because there
is nothing to prove that all its pontiffs were householders prior to becoming
monks. Moreover, the Maths first pontiff, according to its list, was Padmapada,
who never married. Then again it cannot be unconditionally averred that none of
those associsted with the Dwaraka Math (with a list of pontiffs about half that of
the Puri Math) was a householder-turned Samnyasi. For instance, the Math claims
that its first pontiff was Sureswara and he was a householder-turned Samnyasi.
The upshot of this discussion is Shankaras date cannot be arrived at using
just a list of pontiff-names and so I have not chosen to examine the Parampara of
the Puri Math.
(2) As regards my not examining the records of the Sringeri Math here, the
reason is that the subsequent sub-chapters are concerned with the sixth-century
BC period for Shankara and this position is not accepted by the Sringeri Math.
In the records to be considered, one encounters dating in terms of the years
from the start of, say, the Kali Yuga (3102 BC), Vikrama era or Saka era and in
terms of the cyclic year, lunar month and tithi. The cyclical years concerned are
sixty in number, of which the first is called Prabhava and the sixtieth is termed
Akshaya. The lunar months spoken of are twelve in number, the first of which is
78
Shankaras Date
Chaitra and the last is Phalguna. The tithis are the lunar days which comprise
Amavasya (the day of the new moon), Pournami (the day of the full moon) and the
fourteen days between them. Each cyclical year begins in the month of Chaitra
(commonly in March/April) and thus a cyclical year straddles two calendar years.
In the sequel, with reference to a cyclical year mentioned, I have normally not
identified, by a consideration of the lunar month and tithi, the specific calendar
year and have not normally distinguished between an expired year and a current
year. Hence, there could be an error of plus or minus one in several cases in the
year given by me on the basis of the records.
4.4.2 Vacaspati and Udayana

Before delving into Math records, I shall take up the periods of Vacaspati
and Udayana as these have a bearing on the validity of the Kanchi Math records.
Vacaspati Mishra
Vacaspati is the well-known author of the commentary called Bhamati on
the Brahmasutra-bhasya of Shankara. He is also famous as the author of works on
the various Darshanas such as Sankhya, Mimamsa and Yoga. Bhamati appears to
be one of his last works for therein he has mentioned many of his other works. His
period is not difficult to fix.
(1) It is not possible to assign him any period earlier than the 7th century, for
he has referred to Dharmakirti, Udyotakara, Samantabhadra, etc. Any BC period is,
obviously, ruled out.
(2) Vacaspati has named the Buddhist scholar Dharmottara and also cited
him. This has been shown by Dinesh Bhattacharya to whose writing I am indebted
for the following citation of Vacaspati (from Tatparya-tika):

It is thus clear that Vacaspati cannot be before Dharmottara, who is known
to have flourished in the 9th century.
(3) Vacaspati has himself given the date of one of his works. This is the
Nyayasucinibandha. The relevant verse in it is:

( - 8, - 9, - 8)
79
Shankaras Date
Thus, he completed the book in the year 898. Now, 898 of the Vikrama era
corresponds to 841 AD. Reasons to show why the reference cannot have been to
the Salivahana (Saka) era in which case the year would be 976 AD will be taken up
in the sequel.
The arguments to assign him 976 AD and their refutations are as follows:
(i) He has referred to the book Nyayamanjari. This must be the work of
Jayanta Bhatta whose period is not earlier than the 9th century. Such an argument
will not hold, for it has been shown that Vacaspatis own Guru Trilochana wrote a
book by that name and that the reference should be to that book.
(ii) In Samkhyatattva-kaumudi, Vacaspati has quoted the text Rajavartika of
king Bhoja (993 AD). This, however, is questionable.
The following points show that Vacaspati must have flourished in the 9th
century (with the year 898 mentioned by him pertaining to the Vikrama era).
(i) Vacaspatis Guru Trilochana has been mentioned by name and praised by
Rajasekhara, who flourished in the first quarter of the 10th century.
(ii) If Vacaspati completed Nyayasucinibandha not in 898 Vikrama era but in
898 Salivahana era (976 AD), then he and Udayana, who wrote Lakshanavali in 984
AD and authored a commentary, Parisuddhi, on Vacaspatis Tatparya-tika, must
have been contemporaneous writers. However, Parisuddhi and, in particular, its
Mangala-shloka indicate that Udayana flourished later than Vacaspati.
(iii) In History of Indian Logic, Satischandra has presented an instance of
Jayanta Bhatta citing Vacaspati. Part of the reference is:

Jayanta flourished in the 10th century and so Vacaspati must have flourished
earlier.
(iv) Kalyanarakshita flourished in the middle of the 10th century. His follower
Ratnakarashanti was appointed to the Vikramasila University by King Canaka, who
died in 983 AD. Kalyanarakshita has named and cited Vacaspati. An example is:
Hence, Vacaspati cannot have flourished in the latter part of 10th century AD.
80
Shankaras Date
The conclusion that can be arrived at from these points is that Vacaspati lived
in 9th century AD.
Udayana
We will now see some points regarding Udayanas date.
(1) He has himself explicitly stated that he completed Lakshanavali in Saka
906, which corresponds to 984 AD. The verse concerned is:

( - 9, - 0, - 6,)
(2) He has attacked Dharmottara, who flourished in the 9th century.

(3) He has commented on a work of Vacaspati, who flourished in the 9th
century AD.
In the case of Udayana, since he himself has explicitly given his date, we
need have no doubt that he flourished in the 10th century AD.
4.4.3 Sarvajnatman
Sarvajnatman is presented in the Punyashlokamanjari, Gururatnamalika,
Sushama and Guruparampara-stotra as the pontiff of the Kanchi Math after Shankara
and Sureswara (who functioned as Sarvajnatmans regent), as having impressed
Shankara as a boy of seven years and having initiated into Samnyasa by Him and
placed under the care of Sureswara.
In his commentary on the 38th verse of the Gururatnamalika, the author of
Sushama quotes the Brihat Shankara Vijaya (which shall be considered later) to the
effect that when Shankara was going to ascend the Sarvajna-pitha (the seat of
omniscience), a boy who was only almost seven years of age challenged and debated
with Shankara for three days before finally accepting Shankaras position on the
fourth day (
).
The Punyashlokamanjari conveys (in the 5th verse) that Sureswara took care
of the Kanchi Math for 70 years after Shankara ( ) and (in the 6th verse)
that he passed away 2695 years after the start of the Kali-yuga, that is, in 407 BC
( ; =2695 in the light of the katapayadi notation). It then points out
(in the 7th verse) that Sarvajnatman headed the Math with Sureswara for 70 years and
81
Shankaras Date
(after Sureswaras death) did so on his own for 42 years ( )

Giving the temporal details of Sarvajnatmans end, the Punyashlokamanjari says (in
verse 8):

( = 2737, with = 2, = 7, = 3 and = 7)
That is, he passed away in 365 BC (2737 of the Kali Yuga), in the cyclical
year Nala, in the month of Vaisakha, in the Krishna-paksha, on Caturdashi. The
author of Sushama has not only explicitly stated, like in the Punyashlokaramanjari
and the Guruparampara-stotra, that Sarvajnatman was the author of Samkshepasariraka but has also cited verses from it to try to show that Sarvajnatmans Guru
was Sureswara. Let us now examine if it is possible for Sarvajnatman to have lived
in the 5th and 4th century BC, as claimed.
(1) In his Panchaprakriya, which is undisputedly recognized as an authentic
work of the author of the Samkshepa-sariraka, Sarvajnatman explicitly mentions
the author of Ishtasiddhi and quotes him. The pertinent portion is:

Thus, with the prelude, It been said by the author of Ishtasiddhi, he has
cited a verse from the (sixth chapter of the) Ishtasiddhi.
In his Samkshepa-sariraka itself, Sarvajnatman has respectfully referred to
the author of Ishtasiddhi and stated a distinctive view advanced in Ishtasiddhi about
the cessation of ignorance. This is confirmed by Madhusudana Saraswathi, Rama
Tirtha and Nrisimha Ashrama in their commentaries on the Samksepa-sakarika (on
the 14th verse of the 4th chapter).
Hence, it is clear that Sarvajnatman cannot be placed before Vimuktatman,
the author of Ishtasiddhi (and a disciple of Avyayatman). Vimuktatman has, in his
Ishtasiddhi (vide chapter 1), attacked Bhaskara (the author of a commentary on the
Brahmasutras in which Shankara has been repeatedly attacked). This is highlighted
by Jnanotamma in his commentary on Ishtasiddhi (with the words ). Thus,
Sarvarjnatman has cited Ishtasiddhi, Ishtasiddhi contains an attack on Bhaskara
and Bhaskara, as is well-known, has strongly criticized Shankara. Moreover, Yamuna,
82
Shankaras Date
Ramanujas Guru, has, in his Siddhitraya, chronologically listed commentators who,

according to him, have misinterpreted the scripture and, in this list, has placed
Srivatsanka between Shankara and Bhaskara. Thus, the claim made in the Kanchi
Math records that Sarvajnatman was Shankaras junior contemporary is unreliable.
(2) Anandabodha was a disciple of Vimuktatman, the author of Ishtasiddhi.
That he even had another Guru is irrelavent here. In his Pramanamala, Anandabodha
has quoted a portion from Ishtasiddhi and prefaced it with with the words, This
indeed has been said by my Guru. The pertinent reference is:

In Nyaya-makaranda also, Anandabodha has made a similar reference to the
author of Ishtasiddhi. Hence, from the utterances of Anandabodha, we learn that
he was a disciple of Vimuktatman. We shall now use the works of Anandabodha to
ascertain his period as this is has relevance to the period of Vimuktatman.
Anandabodha has explicitly referred to the words of Vacaspati Mishra and
also mentioned him by name. For instance, he says in Pramanamala:

(Hence indeed it has been said by Acharya Vacaspati.)
In his Nyaya-makaranda also, he says:

(It has been said by Acharya Vacaspati - (quotation).)
We have already seen that Vacaspati flourished in the 9th century AD. Hence,
Anandabodha cannot be placed before the 9th century AD. This means that his
Guru, Vimuktatman, and, hence, Sarvajnatman could only have flourished in the AD
period, several centuries after Christ.
(3) In his Samkshepa-sariraka, Sarvajnatman has specified that King Manukuladitya was ruling at that time. His words are:

83
Shankaras Date
While Manukuladitya is an uncommon name, an inscription discovered in

the Pullur Kotavalam Vishnu temple in Kerala directly associates it with Bhaskararavivarman (Annual report of Indian epigraphy 1963-64). This king ruled in Kerala
in the period 962-1018 AD (M.S.G. Narayan, XXXVI Indian History Congress,
1976, Souvenir Volume, and K. Veluthat, Brahmin Settlements in Kerala, 1978).
Sarvajnatmans referring to a king of Kerala is apt as while concluding Samkshepa :
sariraka, he has mentioned Lord Padmanabha of Trivandrum (
st
-- Rama Tirthas commentary on the 61 verse of the fourth chapter). As he was a
contemporary of Manukuladitya (962-1018), Sarvajnatman could not have lived in
the 5th and 4th century BC and must have done so only centuries after Christ.
(4) In a portion of Pramanalakshana, which is recognized as an authentic
work of Sarvajnatman, he has paraphrased a portion of Bhasarvajnas Nyayasara.
The pertinent passage is found in the Anumana section of Pramanalakshana and
commences thus:

Bhasarvajna lived in the 10th century AD (vide History of Navyanyaya
Mithila by Dinesh Bhattacharya, A History of Indian Logic by Satischandra Vidyavibhusana and Nyayasaravicara by Umaramana Jha). Hence, Sarvajnatman could
not have died before the 10th century AD.
(5) Was Sarvajnatman whom the Kanchi Math records declare to be the
author of Samkshepa-sariraka and disciple of Sureswara really a disciple of Sureswara?
It is to be noted that in Samkshepa-sariraka he speaks of Deveswara (and not
Sureswara) as his Guru. The identification of Sureswara with Deveswara is attempted
on the ground that Sura is a synonym of Deva and it is contended that
Sarvajnatman has not named Sureswara explicitly since it is improper to name ones
Guru. It is however noteworthy that Shankara (in Vivekachoodamani), Sureswara
(in Naishkarmya-siddhi), Padmapada (in Panchapadika), Totaka (in Totakastaka),
Vidyaranya (in Jivanmuktiviveka) etc., have named their Gurus explicitly. This
apart, Sarvajnatman has himself named Sureswara in his Pramanalakshana. He has
said in its Anumana section:
-

It may be noted that he has not used here the honorific plural as may be
done, in Sanskrit, to show respect. He has also referred to Sureswara by the latters
well-known epithet Vartikakara. He has, for instance, done so as follows in the
Pratyaksha section of Pramanalakshana while quoting the Naiskarmya-siddhi of
Sureswara:
84
Shankaras Date

Having seen that there is no justification to say that Sarvajnatman must have
deliberately said Deveswara in place of Sureswara to avoid taking his Gurus
name, we shall now take up direct evidence for Deveswara being different from
Sureswara. In Pramanalakshana, Sarvajnatman has unambiguously stated that his
Guru was Deveswara, his Paramaguru (Gurus Guru) was Devananda and his
Parameshtiguru (Paramagurus Guru) was Sresthananda. His words are:

The identification of Devananda with Shankara and Sresthananda with

Govindapada is impossible. The upshot of the discussion is that Sarvajnatmans
Guru was Deveswara who was different from Sureswara.
Conclusion:
Sarvajnatman was not a junior contemporary of Shankara, was not a disciple
of Sureswara and lived only in the AD period, and that too not earlier than the 9th
century. Hence, the Kanchi Math records that convey that he was initiated by
Shankara into Samnyasa (when he was seven years old) and that he was a disciple of
Suresewara and assign him the 5th and 4th century BC period are erroneous. Indeed,
if Sarvajnatman was a boy in Shankaras time and a disciple of Sureswara as is the
position of the Kanchi Math records, then in view of his period, Shankara and
Sureswara too must have lived several centuries after Christ!
4.4.4 Shuddhananda and Anandajnana

According to the Punyashlokamanjari, Sushama and the Guruprampara-stotra,
Shuddhananda and Anandajnana were the 6th and 7th pontiffs of the Kanchi Math.
Consider the 7th pontiff. Some of the details given about him are:
(1) His name was Anandajnana.
(2) His Gurus name was Shuddhananda.
(3) He wrote commentaries on all the Bhashyas of Shankara.
(4) He wrote commentaries on Sureswaras Vartikas.
(5) He succeeded Suddhananda, who died in 125 BC, in the cyclical year Nala,
in the month of Jyestha, in the Sukla-paksha, on Shashti.
85
Shankaras Date
(6) He headed the Kanchi Math for 69 years and died in 55 BC, in the
cyclical year Krodhana, in the month of Vaisakha, in the Krishna-paksha, on
Navami.
Here are verses from the Guruparampara-stotra about the first four details:

(I resort to the lotus-feet of the great sage Shuddhananda, who decimated
the glory of the Jain School and who is served by Anandajnana. I worship him
(Anandajnana), the unmatched author of the commentaries on all the bhashyas of
Shankara and on all the Vartikas of Sureswara.)
We can now consider the fifth of the points referred to. According to the
Punyashlokamanjari, Sarvajnatman died, as seen, 2737 years after the start (in 3102
BC) of the Kali Yuga, that is, in 365 BC, the next pontiff Satyabodha reigned for
96 years ( ) and passed away in the cyclical year Nandana, while
Satyabodhas successor Jnanottama died in the cyclical year Manmatha, 63 years later

). Jnanottama was the Guru of Shuddhananda, the
(
next pontiff. Thus, according to the Kanchi Math records, Shuddhananda took over
as the head of the Math in (365-96-63=)206 BC. About the duration for which he
was the pontiff and when he died, the Punyashlokamanjari says:

(The great sage Shuddhananda shouldered for 81 years the responsibility of
being the Acharya and attained dissolution (in the Supreme) in the cyclical year Nala,
in the month of Jyestha, in the Sukla-paksha, on Shashti.)
As Shuddhananda became the pontiff, as noted, in 206 BC and it is said that
that he headed the Math, till his death, for 81 years, it is discernible that, as per the
data provided by the Punyashlokamanjari, he died in (206-81=)125 BC.
We can now take up the sixth of the details listed. The Punyashlokamanjari says:
86
Shankaras Date

(He, the darkness (of ignorance) of whose mind had been dispelled by the
clear light of the moon in the form of the great sage Shuddhananda, developed the
path of Advaita and having protected it for 69 years, this perfected one, a knower
of Brahman, attained absolute bliss when he neared Srisaila, at dusk, in the cyclical
year Krodhana, in the month of Vaishakha, in the Krishna-paksha, on Navami.)
Now, we all know of the famous Anandajnana, alias Anandagiri, who wrote
commentaries on all the Bhashyas of Shankara as also the Vartikas of Sureswara. It
is patent from his works that:
(1) His name was Anandajnana.
(2) His Gurus name was Shuddhananda.
The above-mentioned two details are, for instance, found in the following
verse of his in the Nyayanirnaya, his gloss on the Brahmasutra-bhasya of Shankara:

The next set of information we have about this Anandajnana is:
(1) He wrote commentaries on all the Bhashyas of Shankara.
(2) He wrote commentaries on the Vartikas of Sureswara.
These two points are indisputable, for the works are available in print (for
example, in the Anandashrama series).
It is thus unmistakeable that this is indeed the Anandajnana who is claimed by
the Kanchi Math. There is, in fact, no other Anandajnana known who was a disciple of
Shuddhananda and who wrote glosses on the Bhashyas of Shankara and the Vartikas
of Sureswara.
Let us now direct our attention to seeing whether Anandajnana could have
lived in the BC period.
(1) Anandajnana wrote a book called Tattvaloka (which is available in print).
Explicitly referring to it in his commentary on the Isavasya-upanishad-bhashya of
Shankara, he has written (while elucidating Shankaras introduction):
87
Shankaras Date

(The six Tatparya-lingas have been shown individually and collectively by us
in Tattvaloka and so are not elaborated upon here.)
In the 1st Adhyaya of Tattvaloka, there is a portion devoted exclusively to the
six Tatparya-lingas referred to here.
Here is another reference to Tattvaloka in Anandajnanas gloss on Shankaras
Isavasya-upanishad-bhashya:

(The Parinama-vada favoured by Bhaskara has been demolished by us in
Tattvaloka.)
There is indeed a portion in Tattvaloka devoted to such an attack. It is in the
2 Adhyaya of that work.
nd
In Tattvaloka, we come across an analysis of Udayanas position. In fact, an

entire section is devoted to it. Hence, Anandajnana could not have flourished prior
to Udayana, who, as already seen, wrote Lakshanavali in 984 AD.
(2) Anandajnana has refered as follows to the Khandana of Sriharsha in his
commentary on Shankaras Taittiritya Upanisad Bhasya.

(Though this (definition) cannot withstand the logical arguments of the
Khandana, nevertheless, as it conduces to verbal transaction, it need not be very
penetratingly scrutinized.)
Sriharsha, the author of Khandana (in which definitions of the Nyaya School
have been scathingly attacked), flourished in the 12th century. He was a court-scholar
of King Jayachandra of Kanyakubja (Kanauj) who was crowned in 1170 AD and
died in 1194 after being defeated by Mohammad Ghori. Sriharshas father, Hira, was
a court-scholar of Jayachandras father, Vijayachandra, who ascended the throne in
1155 AD. Thus, Anandajnana could not have flourished before the 12th century.
(3) In his commentaries on the Katha-upanishad-bhashya and the Mundakaupanishad-bhashya, he has explicitly referred to the work called Prakatartha. For
instance, in his gloss on the Katha-upanishad-bhashya, he has stated:
88
Shankaras Date

(Details could be seen in Prakatartha.)
I have personally confirmed that the appropriate details are indeed found in
the Prakatartha, which is Anubhutisvarupas elucidation of Shankaras Brahmasutrabhashya. Anyone in doubt too may readily do so as the works are available in print.
In Tattvaloka, which was penned by Anandajnana before being initiated into
Samnyasa by Shuddhananda, he says that he wrote it after perusing Prakatartha.

(Having perused the work Prakatartha on the great Brahmasutra-bhasya (of
Shankara), I, Janardana, authored this Tattvaloka.)
He also referred, in Tattvaloka, to Prakatarthas author Anubhutisvarupa as
his preceptor. An instance is:

(Thus concludes the second chapter of Tattvaloka authored by Janardana, a
disciple of Acharya Anubhutisvarupa.)
In Prakatartha, not only have Udayanas writings been referenced, his name has
also been explicitly mentioned. Here is an example:
The details can be verified, as done by me, by referring to the Prakatartha

and Udayanas writings, which are available in print.
The Nyayasara of Bhasarvajna has been paraphrased, literally cited and criticized
in Prakatartha. An instance is:
89
Shankaras Date
Thus, Anandajnana has referred to the Prakatartha and in the Prakatartha

Udayana and Bhasarvajna, who flourished in the 10th century, have been referred.
Anubhutisvarupa has written a commentary named Sishya-hitaishini on the
Khandana of Sriharsha and this is undisputed. Hence, he and, so, his pupil Anandajnana cannot have lived before Sriharsha, who flourished, as already seen, in the
12th century.
Conclusion
Since Anandajnana has referenced Udayanas writing and Sriharshas
Khandana, since Anandajnana has referred to Anubhutisvarupas Prakatartha and
in Prakatartha, Udayana has even been named and Bhasarvajnas Nyayasara
criticized, and since Anandajnana was (prior to Samnyasa) a disciple of
Anubhutisvarupa and the latter has written a commentary on Sriharshas
Khandana, it is impossible for Anandajnana to have lived before Udayana,
Bhasarvajna and Sriharsha. Udayana and Bhasarvajna flourished in the 10th century
AD and Sriharsha in the 12th century AD. Hence, Anandajnana and, so, his Guru
Shuddhananda cannot have lived much before the 10th or, for that matter, even
much before the 12th century. Clearly, the position of the Kanchi Math records that
they flourished in the BC period is totally untenable. Moreover, if it were supposed
that, as claimed in the Kanchi Math records, Shuddhananda and Anandajnana were
the sixth and seventh pontifical-successors of Shankara, then, in view of the fact
that the two must necessarily have lived several centuries after Christ, it would
follow that Shankara too lived only long after Christ!
Not only is the position of the Kanchi Math records that Shuddhananda and
Anandajnana lived in the BC period flawed, even their information about the presamnyasa name of Anandajnana is incorrect. The Punyashlokamanjari states:
:
(He was the son of Suryanaraya Makhi, belonged to the Chera land and his
name was Chinnaya.)
While the Punyashlokamanjari claims that Anandajnanas pre-samnyasa name
was Cinnaya, it is clear from his Tattvaloka, which was penned by him before
becoming a monk, that his name was Janardana, not Cinnaya.
90
Shankaras Date
4.4.5 Paramasivendra Saraswathi and Sadasiva Brahmendra

According to the Gururatnamalika, Sushama and Guruparampara-stotra,
Paramasivendra Saraswathi (II), the Guru of Sadasiva Brahmedra (the great yogi and,
supposedly, the author of the Gururatnamalika), was the 57th pontiff of the Kanchi
Math and was the successor-disciple of Sadasiva Bodhendra Saraswathi (the author/
compiler of the Punyashlokamanjari). The author of Sushama conveys, in verses
composed by him (
) and included by him in his commentary on
th
th
the 84 and 86 verses of the Gururatnamalika, that:
(a) Sadasiva Bodhendra Saraswathi passed away in the cyclical year Vilambi.
(b) In keeping the words of his Guru (Sadasiva Bodhendra), Paramasivendra
Saraswathi headed the Kamakoti Peetha.
(c) Paramasivendra headed the Kamakoti Peetha for 47 years (
; = 47 in the katapayadi notation).
(b) He passed away in the cyclical year Parthiva, in the month of Sravana,
in the Sukla-paksha on Dasami, in the year Saka 1508, that is, in 1585 AD (
; = 1508 in
the katapayadi notation).
(1) In his famous work Daharavidyaprakasika, Paramasivendra refers to himself
(in the colophon) as a disciple of just Abhinava Narayanendra Saraswathi (). Abhinava Narayanendra finds no place in the list of pontiffs of
the Kanchi Math. It is implausible that Paramasivendra would have wholly overlooked
Sadasiva Bodhendra and mentioned just Abhinava Narayanendra as his Guru were
Sadasiva Bodhendra to have really been, as follows from the Kanchi Math records,
the Guru who initiated him into Samnyasa and nominated him as his successor.
(2) At the close of his Daharavidyaprakashika, Paramasivendra states that he
authored it at the request of Trayambaka Makhi, Ramendra, Varadaraja and
Shankaranarayana Makhi. Trayambaka Makhi was a minister of the kings Shahuji
(1684-1712) and Sarabhoji I (1712-1728) of Tanjore. He wrote Dharmakuta, a
commentary on Valmikis Ramayana, and in his introductory verses therein he has
praised Shahujis father (and Shivajis brother) Ekoji (in verse 11) and Shahuji (in
verse 23). Thus, Tryambaka Makhi flourished in the late seventeenth century and in
the eighteenth century. So, Paramasivendra, who wrote the Daharavidyaprakashika
at his request, could not have died way back in 1585, as claimed in the Kanchi Math
records.
(3) Venkatakrishna Dikshita, a disciple of Paramasivendra, figures as the 26 th
donee in a grant of lands in Shahajipuram (Tiruvisanuloor) made to 45 scholars in
1692 by Shahuji (1684-1712). This calls into question the Kanchi Math records
about the period of Paramasivendra, for if Parasivendra had died in 1585 itself, his
91
Shankaras Date
disciple could not have been flourished as a scholar and received land over 100
years later, in 1692.
(4) Nalla Dilshita was a disciple of Paramasivendra Saraswathi. This is patent
from the fact that at the start of in his gloss Parimala on the Advaitarasa-manjari, he
has referred to Paramasivendra as his Guru and offered his salutations to the latter
Nalla Dikshita was also a pupil (and a relation) of
).
(
th
Ramabhadra Dikshita, the 7 donee in the grant made by Shahuji in 1692. Hence,
Parasivendra could not have died over a century earlier, in 1585, as claimed in the
Kanchi Math records.
(5) Mallari, a pandit of the court of the king of Tanjore, Sarabhoji I (17121728), wrote a poetical letter to the king. This has been reproduced fully in the
preface of The Minor Works of Sri Sadasiva Brahmedra (brought out by Vani Vilas
Press). In it, he reports to Sarabhoji that he had the darshan of Sadasiva Brahmedra
at Dipambapuram and prayed to the sage to bless the king with a son (

). The (silent) sage indicated through signs that the king would
soon obtain a son and also vouchsafed a work of his named Atmavidyavilasa (This
is a celebrated work of Sadasiva Brahmendra comprising over 60 verses in the Arya
metre and in it he has glorified his Guru, Paramasivendra, in several verses). That
the letter was addressed to Sarabhoji is unmistakeable for, in the penultimate verse,
the writer has said, your fame, o great king Sarabhoja ( ). It is
pointed out in the preface of The Minor Works of Sri Sadasiva Brahmendra, This
Manuscript of Atmavidyavilasa and this letter at the end of it are now preserved in
the Tanjore Palace Library. As Sarabhoji I ruled in the period 1712-1728, it is
unmistakeable that Sadasiva Brahmendra was alive in the 18th century.
Moreover, it is well-known that Vijaya Raghnunatha Tondaiman I, the king
of Pudukottai who ruled from 1730 to 1769, was a devout disciple of Sadasiva
Brahmendra. The sage initiated the king into a mantra (in 1738) by writing it on
sand. The king collected the sand on which Sadasiva Brahmendra wrote and
preserved it in the Dakshinamurthy temple in the Pudukottai Palace. That is where
it is even now. It is undisputed that Gopalakrishna Sastri was a (Vedic) classmate
of the sage when they were youths. Because of his proficiency in and exposition of
Sanskrit grammar, Gopalakrishna Sastri came to be known as Mahabhasyam
Gopalakrishna Sastri. Vijaya Raghunatha Tondaiman made him the Rajaguru of
Pudukottai and he received a grant of villages from the king in 1739 AD. As he
was active even four decades after the start of the eighteenth century, he could not
have been born before 1585. As Sadasiva Brahmendra and he were classmates as
youths, the former too could not have been born before 1585. In view of all this,
Sadasiva Brahmendras Guru, Paramasivendra, could not have lived in the 16 th
century and died in 1585, as claimed in the Kanchi Math records.
Combining of Points and Conclusions
92
Shankaras Date
To sum up, the author of Sushama asserts that Paramasivendra Saraswathi,

the Guru of Sadasiva Brahmendra, was the successor-disciple of Sadasiva Bodhendra
Saraswathi, headed the Kanchi Math as its 56th pontiff for 57 years and died in
1585 AD (Saka 1508). However, Paramasivendra has mentioned only Abhinava
Narayanendra Sasraswathi as his Guru. Further, it is impossible for Paramasivendra
to have died in the sixteenth century itself, in 1585, since Trayambaka Makhi who
prompted him to pen the Daharavidyaprakashika was active well over 100 years
later as the minister of Shahuji (1684-1712) and Sarabhoji I (1712-1728), since
Paramasivendras disciples Venkatakrishna Dikshita and Nalla Dikshita received
grants of land over 100 years later, in 1692, because Sadasiva Brahmendras boyhood
(Vedic) classmate Gopalakrishna Sastri received a grant about 150 years later, in 1739,
since Mallari, a court-scholar of Sarabhoji, met Sadasiva Brahmendra over 125 years
later and since Sadasiva Brahmedra blessed Vijaya Ragunatha Tondaiman I about 150
years later. Thus, though giving the impression of great precision by providing the
month, Paksha and day of Paramasivendras end, Sushama is actually way off the
mark, by several decades, with regard to the year of his death itself. The reliability of
Sushama is surely suspect because it is highly innacurate even with regard to the
relatively-recent Paramasivendra Saraswathi.
Let us start with the claim made that Paramasivendra died in Saka 1508 or
1585 AD. As conveyed in the verses composed by the author of Sushama and included
in his exposition of the final (87th) verse of the Gururatnamalika, Paramasivendras
successor, Visvadhika Atmabodhendra Saraswathi, was the pontiff (the 58th) for 52
years (
) and Atmabodhendras successor, Bodhendra Saraswathi
reigned for 54 years ( ). Thus, with 1585 taken as year of demise of
Paramasivendra, it follows that the 59th pontiff, Bodhendra, died in (1585+52+54=)
1691 AD. This is confirmed by the author of Sushama, for he specifies that Bodhendra
died in Saka 1614, that is in 1691/92 AD ( ; =1, =6,
=1, =4). In the verse about Bodhendras successor, Atmaprakashedra Sasraswathi,
the author of Sushama states that he was the pontiff for 12 years ( ).
th
Thus, the 60 pontiff passed away in 1703. Now, the author of Sushama claims
that he, a disciple of reigning 61st pontiff, Mahadevendra Saraswathi (III), completed
Sushama in Saka 1642, that is, in 1720 AD. His verses are:

(=1; =6; =4; =2; = 1642.)
93
Shankaras Date
(Greatly nurturing the station of Advaita, Sri Mahadeva(Mahadevendra), the

world-teacher, triumphs in the auspicious Kanchi Guru-peetha. May Sushama, written
by Atmabodha(Atmabodhendra), whose mind-swan relishes the lotus-feet of Mahadeva
(Mahadevendra), be successful for long. This gloss, Sushama, on the Gururatnamalika
was completed by me when 1642 years of the Salivahana-saka had passed (that is, in
1720 AD).)
It, however, cannot be true that Sushama was finished (1720-1585=)135 years
after Paramasivendra, in 1720, in the time of the 61st pontiff. This is because since
Paramsivendra was decidedly alive several decades after the start of the seventeenth
century and his successor, the 58th pontiff, is said to have reigned for 52 years and
the 59th pontiff for 54 years, therefore the pontiff in 1720 should have been 58th (or
the 59th), not the 61st. Thus, Sushama cannot be relied upon even with regard to the
information in it about when it was written and who the pontiff was at that time.
4.4.6 Misquotations
The purpose of this section is to point out that Sushama, the commentary
on the Gururatnamalika, is besmirched by misquotations.
(1) While commenting on the 20th verse of the Gururatnamalika, the author
of Sushama quotes over 25 verses which he says are from the Vyasachalas
Shankara Vijaya. The pertinent portion commences thus:

Not one of these verses is found in the Vyasachaliya.

In his introduction to the printed text of the Vyasachaliya (Madras
Government Oriental Manuscripts Series -24), T. Chandrasekaran, the then curator
of the Oriental Manuscripts Library, has stated (on page v) that six manuscripts
were made use of and, while listing the manuscripts, specified that one of these
was, A palm leaf manuscript belonging to the Kanchi Kamakoti Pitha Matha in
Kanchi and another, A paper manuscript from the same Matha. Thus, we find
that the author of Sushama has quoted over 25 verses from a text whose author
Vyasachala was, it is claimed, the 54th pontiff of the Kanchi Math and yet, even the
manuscripts belonging to his own math do not contain even one these verses.
94
Shankaras Date
(2) Elucidating Verse 18 of the Gururatnamalika, the author of Sushama

quotes a verse about Sivaguru which he says is from the Vyasachaliya. The portion
concerned of Sushama is:
This verse too does not actually occur in the Vyasachaliya.

(3) In support of his view that Shankara ascended the Sarvajna Peetha at
Kanchi and also passed away at Kanchi, the author of Sushama quotes, in his
commentary on Verse 33 of the Gururatnamalika, five verses which he claims are
from the 12th Sarga of the Vyasachaliya. Four of them are not at all from the
Vyasachaliya while one is suitably modified. I shall first deal with the altered verse.
It is said in Sushama:

The author of Sushama makes Vyasachaliya say, with reference to Kanchi
and Shankara, having ascended the Sarvajna Pitha, Math established by Himself
( ) and He (Shankara) dwelt for some time at Kanchi ( ).

These portions are obviously important for the said math but are not found in the
Vyasachaliya. What the Vyasachaliya conveys in the place of Math established by
Himself is the well-bred one rejoiced ( ) and in the place of dwelt for
some time at Kanchi, He went to a pleasing place ( ). It is noteworthy
that in sharp contrast to what is claimed by the author of Sushama, it is
unambiguously stated in the 12th Sarga of the Vyasachaliya that the Sarvajna Pitha
was at Kashmir ( ) and that Shankara went to
Kashmir ( ) to ascend it.
95
Shankaras Date
This altered verse is followed in Sushama, by way of further citation, by four

verses, one of which is:

This declares that Shankara died at Kanchi. It is also not found in Vyasachaliya.
Nor again are the other three verses.
In this connection, Nataraja Aiyer and Lakshminarasimha Sastri have written
(page 64), Evidently, from whomsoever the manuscripts were obtained, that
individual has taken care to expunge these shlokas so favourable to the Kamakoti
Pitha. I have already pointed out that according to the editor Chandrasekharan
two of the manuscripts utilized belonged to the Kanchi Math and so these words
are quite misleading. Further, the editor has explicitly remarked that his attention
was drawn to these verses but he did not find them in the manuscripts. Moreover,
why indeed are the other shlokas that have nothing for or against the Kanchi Math
also missing? Thus, Nataraja Aiyer and Lakshminarasimha Sastris claim that verses
were altered to delete mention of Kanchi is without merit.
(4) The author of Sushama has quoted some verses that he claims are from
the Keraliya Shankara Vijaya and which convey that Shankara died at Kanchi after
ascending the Sarvajna Peetha there. We are also told that Shankaras end was in
the Kamakshi temple. The pertinent portion of the Sushama is:
-

The Keraliya Shankara Vijaya of Govindanatha is available in print.
Subbarama Pattar had arranged for its printing at Mangalodayam Press in 1926. An
edition of Govindanathas work was brought out in 1966, edited by Divakaran
Namboodri. Since even the printed texts are available, it makes our task easier to
96
Shankaras Date
verify the reference. As expected, the above-mentioned verses are not found in the
Keraliya Shankara Vijaya. What that text actually says is that Shankara passed away
at Trichur and that prior to that, he was praising Vishnu. This portion is, in part:

It is patent that the author of Sushama has not cited any of these verses of
the Keraliya Shankara Vijaya about the concluding portion of Shankaras life.
While more examples can be given, these should be suffice to establish that
Sushama is tainted by many a misquotation.
4.4.7 Gaudapada and Govindapada

Some of the previous chapters have been devoted to the pontiffs who, over
time, are said to have succeeded Shankara at the Kanchi Math. Now, we shall
examine what the Gururatnamalika and Sushama have stated about Govindapada
and Gaudapada, who preceded Shankara. The Gururatnamalika has one verse each
about Gaudapada and Govindapada and these are:

(I seek refuge in Gaudapada, whose holy feet were worshipped by Ayarchya
who had debated with him, who was the guide of Apalunya and other accomplished
ones and was the competent first teacher of the Mahabhashya of the king of serpents
(that is, Patanjali).)
97
Shankaras Date
(May Jaya-govinda, who dwelt on the bank of the Narmada river, who, in
various aspects, was Vishnus bed (the serpent Adisesha), the (snake-)anklet of Sivas
foot, Lakshmana (Ramas brother, an incarnation of Adisesha) and Balarama (Krishnas
elder brother, an incarnation of Adisesha), and whose name (prior to becoming a
monk) was Chandra.)
After the verse about Govindapada, the author of the Gururatnamalika has
devoted a complete verse to Bhartrhari. This is odd because Bhartrhari forms no
part of the Guruparampara of the Kanchi Math and because in the Gururatnamalika even five pontiffs (for example, the fourth to the ninth) have been covered
in a single verse, with some (for example, the fifth to the ninth) not even being
named. This verse is:
:

(May Hari (Bhartrhari), who, because of being his (Govindapadas) son and
because of having imbibed the ultimate knowledge, was his (Govindapadas) thorough
disciple and object of affection and who gave up taking care of the kingdom because
of dispassion, eradicate my sins by his power.)
Expatiating on what has been said in the second half of the verse on
Gaudapada, the author of the Sushama has succinctly conveyed the following account:
Patanjali taught his disciples the Mahabhashya in his innate serpent-form as Adisesha
after ensuring that a curtain intervened between him and them. One of the students
was Gaudapada. Even as the lessons were in progress, he left to answer the call of
nature. Meanwhile, out of curiosity, the other disciples moved the curtain slightly.
The result of this was that they were reduced to ashes by the poisonous flames that
emanated from the hoods of Patanjali. On Gaudapadas return, (as he had left without
permission,) Patanjali cursed him that would become a Brahma-rakshasa. Upon
Gaudapadas falling at his feet and seeking forgiveness, Patanjali calmed down and
declared that the curse would end upon Gaudapada expounding the Mahabhashya
fully to a competent disciple. After testing many, Gaudapada at last expounded the
Mahabhashya to a competent disciple, Chandra (Govindapada, prior to Samnyasa
and an incarnation of Adisesha). On becoming free from the curse, he ascended to
the Himalayas. There, he received the grace of Sage Suka and lived as a monk ever
absorbed in contemplating on the true nature of the Atman. At some time, he was
approached and served by Pravriti, the Sakya king of Takshasila, and by Apaluni
and Damisa and other yogis. His earlier disciple Chandra came to him, received
Samnyasa from him and took on the name of Govinda. Expounding Advaita daily,
Gaudapada lived for long happily.
98
Shankaras Date
In his exposition of the verse about Bhartrhari, the author of Sushama has
stated that Bhartrhari, Vikrama (Vikramaditya), Bhatti and Vararuci were the sons
) and that Bhartrhari was author
of Chandra Sharma (
of great works such as Vakyapadiya and also identifies him with Bhartrprapanca
( ).
(1) In his book Gaudapada, Professor T.M.P. Mahadevan has paraphrased some
information about Gaudapada given in the Gururatnamalika (in verse 10) and
Sushama and then pointed out what date of Gaudapada follows from it. He has
written Gaudapada was in quest of the Self under the guidance of Suka on a
peak of the Himalayas and that through his influence erroneous views of Bauddhas
headed by Ayarcya who was being attended by such Yogins of the western border
of India as Apalunya and Damisa as well as by Pravrti, the Sakya chief of
Takasasila, were made to disappear. If we are to believe this legend, Gaudapada
must have been a contemporary of Apalunya who is the same as Apollonius of
Tyana who lived in the first century A.D. He has then shown how the various
names match those of the Greeks of the 1st century who are supposed to have
visited India. If Gaudapada be associated with persons of the AD period, how
could Shankara and His disciples have flourished centuries before Christ?
(2) We have already seen that Bhartrhari, the author of Vakyapadiya flourished in 5th
century AD. This implies that Govindapada should also have lived in AD or else,
he could not have been the father of the author of the Vakyapadiya. Either way, the
Gururatnamalika and Sushama stand contradicted.
(3) According to the author of Sushama, all the disciples of Patanjali perished except
Gaudapada, who became a Brahma-rakhasa. If so, the Mahabhashya should have
been quite unavailable till it was taught by the Brahma-rakshasa to Chandra. However,
Bhartrhari has explicitly stated in his Vakyapadiya that the Mahabhashya was available
in South India even before it was obtained by Chandra and others. His words are:

99
Shankaras Date

(The Mahabhashya authored by Patanjali was submerged by Vaiji,
Saubhava and Haryaksha, the followers of dry logic. The sacred work of grammar
slipped away from the followers of Patanjali in the course of time and survived in
just the form of a book with the people of the South. Then this sacred work was
obtained from the mountain (or obtained from Parvata) by the teacher Chandra
and others who were followers of the essence of the Mahabhasya and made multibranched.)
It is noteworthy that not only does Bhartrhari point out that the Mahabhasya was
available in South India, he attributes the recovery of the Mahabhasya in the North
to not just Chandra but to Chandra and others.
Thus, the Vakyapadiya contradicts several aspects of what is subscribed to by the
authors of Gururatnamalika and Sushama.
(4) If, as claimed in the Gururatnamalika and Sushama, Govindapada was the father
of Bhartrhari, the author of Vakyapadiya, Govindapada (then known as Chandra)
was the only disciple to whom the Brahma-rakshasa expounded the Mahabhashya
and the Brahma-rakshasa was the sole living disciple of Patanjali, the author of the
Mahabhashya, then Bhartrhari must have learnt the Vyakarana-sastra from his
father. However, as pointed out by Punyaraja in his commentary on the Vakyapadiya
and by Simhasurigani, Bhartrharis Guru was Vasurata.
(5) After giving the details about Gaudadapada and Chandra, the author of Sushama
has said that in this regard, the narratives given in Harimishras Gaudapadollasa and
in Patanjali-vijaya should be referred ( ).
The Gaudapallosa is unavailable now. Ramabhadra Dikshita, a contemporary of
Paramasivendra Saraswathi, penned the poetical work, Patanjali-caritra, which has
also been called Patanjali-vijaya. While it is said therein that after being freed from
the curse, the Brahma-rakshasa went away to heaven (), the author of
Sushama states that the Brahma-rakshasa (Gaudapada) ascended a Himalayan peak
( ). Next, while that work gives the full name of Chandra as
Chandra Gupta, the author of Sushama gives the name as Chandra Sharma. The
Patanjali-carita says that Chandra married four wives, one of each caste and had a
son by each of them. The sons were, as stated in this work and in Sushama,
Bhartrhari, Vikramaditya, Bhatti and Vararuchi. However, unfavourable to the
position of the Gururatnamalika and Sushama about Bhartrhari is the account in
the Patanjali-carita that Bhartrhari was Chandras son by a Sudra wife and it was
Vararuchi who was his son by a Brahmin wife.
100
Shankaras Date
(6) While the author of Sushama identifies Bhartihari, the son and enlightened
disciple of Govindapada, with Bhartrprapanca, the fact is that Bhartrprapanca is
strongly attacked by Shankara in His Brihadaranyaka-upanishad-bhashya and Anandagiri has explicitly pointed out that the one being repudiated is Bhartrpranca.
(7) The position of the author of Sushama that Bhartrhari was the same as
Bhartrprapanca is in direct contrast with the clear distinction between the two
made by Yamuna, a revered preceptor of Ramanuja, in his Siddhitraya. He has written:

(8) The revolting position that one will have to subscribe to if one goes by what is
stated and implied in Gururatnamalika and Sushama is that Shankaras Paramaguru
was earlier a carnivorous demon and that His Guru found the need for wives from
every caste!
4.4.8 Vimarsha
Vimarsha is a book written by Swami Rajarajeswara Shankara Ashrama, a
pontiff of the Dwaraka Math. Some committed promoters of the 509 BC theory
such as Narayana Sastri (in The Age of Sankara) have sought to use the contents of
this book selectively in favour of the Kanchi Math accounts. However, Vimarsha
and the Kanchi Math records are incompatible and, so, if one is accepted, the other
must be rejected. This is taken up first in this section and after that Vimarsha is
probed.
(1) According to the Punyashlokamanjari, which is ascribed to Sadasiva Bodhendra
Sarasawathi the 56th pontiff of the Kanchi Math, Shankara disappeared into His own
essence at the age of 32 years in the 2625th year of the Kali Yuga, in the cyclical year
Raktakshi, in the month of Vrshabha, in the Sukla-paksha, on Ekadashi. As the Kali Yuga
is deemed to have started in 3102 BC, Shankara passed away, as per the Kanchi Math
records, in 477 BC.
The author of Vimarsha has given a set of dates pertaining to events in

Shankaras life (on pages 25-27) as also a list of Peethadhipathis of the Dwaraka
Math, together with the dates till which they reigned (on pages 27 and 28). For
Shankaras life and up to the 9th pontiff Brahmajyotsna, Yudhishtira era has been
utilized, while for the subsequent pontiffs, Vikrama era has been employed. The
date of Shankaras birth is given (on page 25) as 2631 of the Yudhishtira era, in the
month of Vaisakha, in the Sukla-paksha, on Panchami and His date of disappearance
is given (on page 27) as 2663 of the Yudhishtira era, in the month of Kartika, on
Pournami. It is essential to know which year was taken by the author of Vimarsha
as the beginning of the Yudhishtira era. A clue is available on page 89 of the said
101
Shankaras Date
book. There, the author specifies the year of completion of his work as 1953 of the
Vikrama era and as 2367 years from the birth of Shankara ( ).
Thus, as per the author of Vimarsha, the beginning of the Vikrama era was 23671953 = 414 years after the birth of Shankara. The Vikrama era commenced in 57
BC. Hence, Bhagavatpadas birth must have been in 57+414 = 471 BC according
to Vimarsha. This means that Shankara was born, according to Vimarsha, after He
is supposed to have died, according to the Kanchi Math records! Moreover, while
Shankaras end is supposed to have been, as per Vimarsha, in the month of Kartika,
on Pournami, the Punyashlokamanjari says it was in the month of Vrshabha, on
Ekadashi. Thus, if the record of the Dwaraka Math is accepted, that of the Kanchi
Math must be set aside.
(2) On pages 29, 30, and 31 of Vimarsha are reproduced what are said to be
the contents of a copper-plate inscription, which is in the form of an address to
Shankara by emperor Sudhanva, the signatory, who presents himself as a
contemporary and ardent follower of Shankara. At its close, the year is given as
Yudhishtira era 2663, month as Aswina and day as Pournami. The date of Shankaras
passing away given independently in Vimarsha is, as seen, Yudhishtira era 2663, in
the month of Kartika, on Pournami. Since the month of Kartika occurs immediately
after the month of Aswina, it follows that Sudhanva made his submission to
Shankara exactly one month prior to the close of Shankaras life. Going by the
copper-plate inscription, Shankara established only four Maths. These were at
Dwaraka, Badri, Jagannath (Puri) and Sringeri. Sudhava also specifies the names of
their pontiffs. Independently, from a perusal of pages 25, 26 and 27, wherein the
events of Shankaras life are given with their dates, it is unmistakeable that as per
Vimarsha, Shankara established His Maths at just these four places, and not anywhere
else. So, from the reproduction of the copper-plate inscription and also independently
from Vimarsha, it follows Shankara did not establish a Math at Kanchi. Hence, if
the Vimarsha in general and the copper plate in particular be accepted as true, the
records of the Kanchi Math must be discarded as forgeries. If on the other hand,
the details of the Kanchi Math records be held to be valid, the copper plate in
particular and the Vimarsha in general must be considered to be erroneous.
(3) In the copper-plate inscription, we have . i.e.,
Viswarupa alias Sureswaracharya (vide page 30, line 19 of Vimarsha). Thus, as per
the copper-plate inscription, Viswarupa and Sureswara are non-different.
Before proceeding with this point, I would like to draw the attention of the
reader to the levels to which some have stooped in order to support their pet theories.
On page 219 of T.S. Narayana Sastris The Age of Sankara (1971 edition), it is
written, The following is the full text of king Sudhanvans Copper plate published
at p. 29 of Vimarsha: and then the text of the inscription is given on pages 220
and 221. On page 221, in line 4 of the Sanskrit text, Narayana Sastri has slyly replaced
102
Shankaras Date
of the original by - . So, in the place

of Viswarupa alias Sueswaracharya, Narayana Sastri has introduced Mandana Mishra
alias Sureswaracharya. In other parts of his book, he has tried to argue that Mandana
Mishra and Viswarupa were different persons and that it was Mandana Mishra who
became Sureswaracharya. He is entitled to his opinions but I leave it to the reader
to judge whether that permits him to make changes to favour his views and yet claim
that he is publishing a copy of the original. This was decidedly no pinting error, for
the names are quite different. Perhaps Narayana Sastri overlooked the fact that
Vimarsha, a printed book, would be available with people other than himself.
Ironically, in several places in his book, Narayana Sastri has accused others of
meddling with the actual passages of texts!
Let me return to the point on hand. We have seen that according to the
copper plate of Sudhanva, Viswarupa was the same as Sureswara. The commentary
Sushama on the Gururatnamalika, on the other hand, explicitly differentiates between
Mandana Mishra and Viswarupa and states that it was the former and not the latter
who became Sureswaracharya. Thus, Sushama and the copper plate are incompatible.
(4) The copper-plate inscription (page 30 of Vimarsha) declares that Totaka
alias Pratardanacharya was appointed by Shankara as the pontiff of the Jyotir Math
(Badrinath), Prithvidhara alias Hastamalakacharya as the pontiff of Sringeri Math,
Padmapada alias Sanandanacharya as the head of Bhogavardhana (Govardhana
Math, Puri) and Viswarupa alias Sureswaracharya as head of the Math in Dwaraka.
As opposed to this, the Gururatnamalika says (in verse 32) that Prithvidhava
(=Prithvidhara, as pointed out by Narayana Sastri, etc), Padmapada, Hastamalaka
and Anandagiri were appointed pontiffs of the Maths at Sringeri, Dwaraka, Puri
and Badrinath respectively. This means that Prithvidhara and Hastamalaka are
different persons according to it. Either this or the details given in the copper plate
(that they are the same) has to be correct but not both. Further, while the copperplate inscription mentions Sureswaracharya as the pontiff of the Dwaraka Math,
the Gururatnamalika does not concur. This again is a disparity.
(5) Vimarsha (on page 26) mentions Shankaras ascending the seat of Sarada
in Kashmir in the year prior to His passing away. This is at total variance with the
Kanchi Math records which state that Shankara ascended this seat only at Kanchi.
This difference too points to the Vimarsha and the Kanchi Math records being
mutually contradictory.
(6) Vimarsha makes no mention of Shankara moving to South India from
Kashmir. On the other hand, it specifies that in 2663 Yudhishtira era, He assumed
His natural form of Siva and returned to Kailasa. This deals a death blow to the
Kanchi Math records which state that Shankara disappeared at Kanchi. Thus, the
records of the Dawarka and the Kanchi Maths are incompatible.
103
Shankaras Date
(7) On page 22 of Vimarsha, it is conveyed that Sureswara and the author of

the Samkshepa-sariraka were pontiffs of the Dwaraka Math. The author of the
Samkshepa-sariraka is Sarvajnatman. He is referred to on page 27 as Sarvajnana
Acharya, the pontiff after Sureswara. For their part, the Kanchi Math records claim
that Sureswara and Sarvajnatman, the author of Samkshepa-sarika, headed the Kanchi
Math. Both these claims cannot be simultaneously true.
Thus, the Dwarka Math and the Kanchi Math records are irreconcilable and
were Vimarsha and the copper-plate inscription cited in it valid, the Kanchi Math
records would have to be dismissed as fake. As such, it would be unreasonable for
anyone to consider the two together and aver that authentic records of the Kanchi
Math and the Dwaraka Math jointly demonstrate that Shankaras period was several
centuries before Christ.
Let us now consider Vimarsha, leaving aside for the moment the copperplate inscription cited therein. This is but a work penned in the last decade of the
nineteenth century that simply gives, without any firm supportive evidence and
unbacked by any ancient but extant record in the Dwaraka Math, exact dates of
even events such as Shankaras thread ceremony (2636 Yudhishtira era, month of
Caitra month, Sukla-paksha, Navami), His taking up Samnyasa (2639, month of
Kartika, Sukla-paksha, Ekadashi), His meeting Govindapada (2640, month of
Phalguna, Sukla-paksha, Dvitiya), etc. Moreover, it contains bizzare accounts such
as (on page 34) that Shankara flew by His own power to Arabia, hovered in mid-air
for 64 days and taught Vedanta to the Yogis there in Arabic and that much later a
distorted portion of His teaching resulted in the Koran! Another instance of an
outlandish assertion in Vimarsha (on page 35) is that not a single philosophical
opponent remained after Shankaras Digvijaya, for all the disputants were either
subjugated or burnt to ashes ( ) by Him. Thus, if in spite of Vimarsha
containing such preposterous assertions, the various uncorroborated dates of the
BC period given in it pertaining to Shankara are to be accepted that will have to be
on the basis of blind faith in this late-nineteenth-century work.
Now let us consider the copper-plate inscription mentioned in Vimarsha.
(1) In the copper-plate inscription, Sudhava asserts that he gained rulership
over the whole of Bharatavarsha (India) in a line of succession from Yudhishtira
( ) and that he is a sarvabhauma (universal emperor) (

).
Shankara has, however, said in His Brahmasutra-bhasya (on Brahmasutra 1.3.33)
that there was no sarvabhouma in His time. Thus, Sudhanvas declaration about
even himself is false and this is a pointer to the copper-plate inscription not being
genuine.
104
Shankaras Date
(2) In the copper-plate inscription, Sudhanva claims that in his dominion

people of all the varnas (the four major castes) and ashramas (the four stages of
life) practiced Dharma as in the Krita Yuga (the pristine age of righteousness).
Shankara has, however, accepted in the Brahmasutra-bhasya (on Brahmasutra 1.3.33)
that in His times, Varna-ashrama-dharma was unsettled. Thus, what Sudhanva has
claimed is invalid. This too is a pointer to the copper-plate inscription being
unauthentic.
(3) If the copper-plate inscription is genuine, then, because of it belonging
to the fourth century BC, it would be one of the oldest copper-plate inscriptions
discovered anywhere in the world. Also, it would be of vital importance to the
Dwaraka Math, specifying as it does the founding of this Math by Shankara with
Sureswara as its pontiff. One would obviously expect such a significant and ancient
copper-plate inscription to be carefully preserved. Yet, while Swami Rajarajeswara
Ashrama, a pontiff of the Dwaraka Math, writes in Vimarsha as if it was available
with him, neither is the Dwarka Math in possession of it, nor has it been traced
anywhere else either. There is not even a photographic copy of it. It has never been
studied, authenticated and reported on by any expert. Thus, the words of the
author of Vimarsha constitute the sole support for even the existence of this copperplate inscription, let alone its genuineness.
105
Shankaras Date
4.5
Brihat Shankara Vijaya
In his commentary of 18th verse of the Gururatnamalika, the author of

Sushama has prefaced his citation of a verse from the Brihat Shankara Vijaya about
Shankaras Upanayana by observing, Sri Sarvajna Citsukha, who ever moved about
with the Acharya (Shankara), was a witness to all the events (relating to Shankaras
life), was born, like a brother, in the same Agrahara (as Shankara, in Kalady) and
was never separated from Shankara all through (Shankaras) life, has said as follows
in his work, the Brihat Sankara Vijaya.
T. S. Narayana Sastri stated in his Age of Sankara, first published in 1916,
The book has been evidently divided into three parts, (I) Purvacharya Saptaha, (II)
Sankaracharya Saptaha and (III) Suresvaracharya Saptaha; but we have been able to
get a mutilated copy of the work containing only the Sankaracharya Saptaha. It is
pity that the work has not been as yet completely collected or printed in any part of
India. The second edition of The Age of Sankara, containing the original as well
additional material readied by Narayana Sastri, was published after his death (by his
son T. N. Kumaraswamy), in 1971. Therein (in pages 272-275), he has presented
32 verses with the following prelude: In the 32nd Prakarana of the said work, in the
2nd Prakarana of Sankaracharya Satpatha of the Brihat Shankara Vijaya, Chitsukhacharya
gives the following description of the birth of Sankara, and as the passage is important
we have chosen to give the whole of the Prakaranaas is found in the copy of the
manuscript in our possession.
The Brihat Shankara Vijaya has never been printed and is now untraceable
even in manuscript form. The copy of the manuscript that Narayana Sastri claimed
he had in his possession is unavailable anywhere now and his son Kumaraswamy
has written in the preface to the second edition, The manuscripts containing valuable
matter were lost, leaving no trace behind. Thus,
Among the 32 verses given by Narayana Sastri in The Age of Sankara (1971
edition), those about the year, month, day and time of Shankaras birth and the
planetary positions at that time are:

106
Shankaras Date

It is conveyed that Shankara was born in the year 2631 of the Yudhishtira era,
(which, Narayana Sastri points out, corresponds to 509 BC). The cyclical year was
Nandana. He was born in the month of Vaisakha, in the Sukla-paksha, on Panchami,
in the Abhijit Muhurta.
Based on the planetary positions specified in the passage, the following is the
chart that can be prepared. This chart is the same in content as what was published
by Narayana Sastri in The Age of Sankara (page 288, 1971 edition) and is also what
was checked up by me independently by consulting a knowledgeable astrologer.
Sukra
Surya
Budha
Chandra
Guru
Lagna
Kuja
Sani
It may be noted that the positions of Rahu and Ketu have not been indicated.
I am told that if we use just the data supplied for the planetary positions then, in
this case, the positions of these two cannot be uniquely fixed.
Narayana Sastri has stated (The Age of Sankara, page 16, 1971 edition), The Kali
Yuga or the present age consisting of 432, 000 solar years commenced in 3102 BC.
and (on page 22), The Yudhisthira Saka, according to all classes of Hindus,
commenced 37 years before the beginning of the Kali Yuga in 3139 BC. and dates
from the crowning of Yudhisthira, the eldest of the five Pandava brothers at the
close of the Mahabharata war. Accordingly, 2631 of the Yudhishtira era specified
107
Shankaras Date
in the verses cited corresponds, according to him, to 509 BC. The place of birth of
Shankara, as discernible from the first verse of the chapter presented by Narayana
Sastri, is Kalady in Kerala ( ) .
(1) I suspected the genuineness of what was presented by Narayana Sastri as
being a part of the Brihat Shankara Vijaya and so I requested Mrs. Gayatri Devi
Vasudev, astrologer and daughter of Dr. B. V. Raman, the renowned editor of
Astrological Magazine, to work out the planetary positions for me. The data given
by me was: 509 BC, Vaisakha, Sukla-paksha, Panchami, Abhijit Muhurta and birthplace, Kalady. She was kind enough to tell me that she, in consultation with her father,
would work out the details and let me know. Following is the chart that was
arrived at by her.
Sani
o
8 12'
Budha
o
7 6'
Surya
20'
Shukra
o
7 8'
Rahu
o
11 18'
Chandra
o
11 42'
Lagna
o
24 45'
Kuja
o
12 18'
Ketu
o
11 18'
Guru
o
15 30'
Anybody can see that the planetary positions that prevailed in 509 BC on
Vaisakha Sukla Panchami, Abhijit Muhurta for birth in Kalady do not at all tally with
what is stated by the Brihat Shankara Vijaya. This is not all. According to the
quoted passages, Shankara was born on a Sunday. Mrs. Gayathi Devi Vasudev writes
the birth works out to April 3, at 12 hours, 3 minutes and 30 seconds (Abhijit Muhurta)
local time at Kalady (8N29, 76E59) and the day is Monday. So, whoever created this
part of the said Shankara Vijaya was unable to get even the day of the week right.
Clearly, this portion of the Brihat Shankara Vijaya is worthless as evidence for the
date of Shankara.
(2) The Brihat Shankara Vijaya cannot even be defended thus: These verses
should not be dismissed as invalid even though there is a major mismatch between
what is specified by them and what was ascertained to have actually been the case in
509 BC, for there may be a match in a somewhat different year. This is because, in the
verses reproduced here, it is pointed out that Shankara was born in the cyclical year
108
Shankaras Date
Nandana ( ) and Nandana occurs only once in 60 years. Further, as per the
verses, Shankara was born in 2631 Yudhisthira-era ( )
and this would be violated for every any other Nandana. Hence, the gross mismatch
in planetary positions and even in the day of the week indefensibly demolishes the
credibility of the verses about Shankaras advent.
(3) The verses reproduced earlier about the birth of Shankara are the 12th, 13th,
14th, 15th and 16th of the 32 verses presented by Narayana Sastri. The first 30 verses
are supposed to be the words of Citsukha to his disciple, Sarvajnana, and are in the
Anustup metre. The well-known rule for the Anustup metre is that it must consist
of 4 Padas of 8 syllables each. Also, the 5th syllable must be short in all the Padas,
the 6th must be long and the 7th must be short in the 2nd and 4th Padas and must be
long in the 1st and 3rd Padas. The author of the verses seems to have been incapable
of composing correctly even in the rather simple Anustup metre, for some of them
are badly flawed metrically. For instance, the fourth Pada of the 14th verse (this is
the third of the verses reproduced earlier) is:

Unlike the first, second and the third Padas of this verse, this fourth Pada has just
seven syllables and not eight as is required by the clear-cut rules of the Anutup metre.
Next, consider the third Pada of the 15th verse (this is the fourth of the verses
reproduced earlier). This is:

Unlike the first, second and fourth Padas of the verse in question, this Pada has just
seven syllables, not eight. Thus, we have two major metrical errors in successive
verses themselves. Presumably, the real author of these verses was someone inept
at versification and not any learned disciple of Shankara.
(4) Verse 17 of the Gururatnamalika speaks of the advent of Shankara but
provides no temporal data. In the course of his elaborate commentary on this verse,
the author of Sushama gives the year, month, position of the sun, etc., but does so
by citing only the Pracina Sankara Vijaya. It is noteworthy that he does not at all
cite the Brihat Shankara Vijaya in this context (i) in spite of the Brihat Shankara Vijaya
giving, through the four verses considered, comprehensive astrological data unlike
the quoted Pracina Shankara Vijaya, (ii) in spite of the Brihat Shankara Vijaya being
(according to the author of the Sushama) the work of a close disciple of Shankara
who was even born in the same agrahara (unlike the Pracina Shankara Vijaya whose
author is supposed to be Anandagiri) and (iii) in spite of his quoting the Prachina
Shakara Vijaya as also the Brihat Shankara Vijaya in some other contexts, such as in
connection with Shankaras Upanayana. This calls into question the genuineness of
the verses given by Narayana Sastri because it is rather improbable that the author
of Sushama would have wholly omitted them had he known of them.
109
Shankaras Date
4.6
Jina Viyaya
Narayana Sastri has claimed in The Age of Shankara (and his claim has been
mechanically repeated by several others, such as Kota Venkatachelum, Nataraja Aiyer
and Laksminarasimha Sastri) that there is a Jain work called Jina Vijaya that describes
Kumarila having deceptively met and studied under Mahavira and his being exposed
and punished and also gives the year of Kumarilas birth, the year of Shankaras
death and the year of Shankaras meeting with Kumarila and the latters passing
away. Here is some of what Narayana Sastri has written (The Age of Shankara,
149-151, 1971 edition):
later biographers have invariably confounded the Jainas with the Bauddhas
But Chitsukha distinctly says that Kumarilas opponents were Mahavira and his
followers called the Jainas, and that he directed his energies against the Jainas alone
who under their founder Mahavira Vardhamana, began to undermine the Vedic
Brahminism in his day.
We find a wonderful corroboration of this account from quite an
unexpected source. It is, indeed, evidence furnished by the opponents of Sankaras
school of philosophy. We mean the Jina Vijaya, one of the oldest works on the life
of Jina or Mahavira, by an orthodox Jain poet, who distinctly mentions Kumarila
Bhatta and king Sudhanvan as contemporaries of his hero Mahavira, and who
considers these two personages as well as Sankara as his enemies, and refers to
them in a contemptible manner
Thus in describing the birth of Kumarila Bhattacharya, the Jina Vijaya
declares:

We shall get the year Krodhin, if we calculate the figures Rishi (7), Vara (7),
Purna (0) and Martyaksha (2) in the reverse order. Be it known that it was in that
year 2077 of the Yudhishthira Saka that Kumara Bhattacharya, the special advocate
of the Karma-kanda was born.
110
Shankaras Date
It is clear from this that Kumarila was born in the year Krodhin of the year
2077 of the Yudhishthira Saka (according to the Jains) corresponding to (2077
+468) 2545 of the Kali Yuga or in other words in 577 B.C.
The fall ()of Kumarila Bhatta, both from the esteem of the Jainas
with whom for sometimes he studied under their great teacher Mahavira, and from
the high terrace of the said master, appears to be a memorable event in the history
of Ancient India; and the Jina Vijaya, regarding the said point, declares :

It was the year Dhatri when 2109 years had elapsed in Yudhishthira Saka,
calculating the figures Nandas (9), Purna (0), Bhu (1) and Netra (2) in the reverse
order. It was in that auspicious year that Kumara Bhattacharya met with his fall.
The poet being a Jain is glad to think of the discomfiture of Kumarila in the
hands of the Great Jaina teacher and his worthy followers, and remembers the year
as an auspicious one in the history of the Jainas, as the epithet indicates. So this
incident must have happened in the year 2019 of the Yudhishthira Saka according
to the Jains, corresponding to 525 B.C. Kumarila must have been 32 years old at
that time.
Referring to the date of Sankaracharya, the Jina Vijaya states:

When we calculate the figures Rishi (7), Bana (5), Bhumi (1) and Martaksha
(2), in the reverse order and obtain the total number of years 2157 in the
Yudhishthira Saka, we arrive at the year Tamraksha (Raktakshi) as the year of
Sankaras death.
It is plain that Sankara died in the year Raktakshi corresponding to the year
2157 of the Yudhishthira Saka (according to the Jains) the year (2157+468) 2625
of the Kali Yuga corresponding to 477 B.C.
111
Shankaras Date
Lastly referring to this extraordinary meeting of Sankara and Kumarila on

his funeral pyre, the Jina Vijaya declares:

Thereupon, when 15 years had elapsed from his birth, Sankara met Bhattacharya
for the first and last time.
It will be, thus seen, that Sankara met Kumarila in Ruddhapura near Prayaga in the
act of self-immolation in his 16th year, that is about 403 B.C. in which year,
therefore, Kumarilapassed away from the world.
(1) What strikes a death knell to the alleged position of the Jina Vijaya and
the Brihat Shankara Vijaya about Kumarila having met and studied under Mahavira
is that in such a case, Kumarila must have been a contemporary of even Gautama
Buddha and that is impossible. It is not possible for Kumarila to have been a
contemporary of Buddha, for he has attacked the later-developed schools of
Buddhism. Moreover, it is quite undisputed that Kumarila lived long after the
Buddha. Even those subscribing to a sixth century BC period for Shankara have,
including Narayana Sastri, recognized that there must have been a long gap of
centuries between Buddha and Shankara and have claimed that Buddha lived way
back in the 19th century BC, and not in the 6th century BC, as is widely recognized
(This is discussed in the appendices). While Narayana Sastri and others would like
to have it that Kumarila and Mahavira were contemporaries and lived in the sixth
century BC, but that Kumarila and Mahavira were not the contemporaries of
Gautama Buddha and lived centuries after the latter, this position is at total
variance with the canonical texts of the Buddhists and the Jains.
It is noteworthy that twice in the Digha Nikaya and once in the Majjhima
Naikaya of the Buddhist Tripitakas, the scene is described of Gautama Buddha
being informed of the passing away of Mahavira. It is also pertinent that Bimbisara
and his son Ajatashatru are described in the Buddhist canonical texts as the
successive rulers of Magadha, as the contemporaries of Buddha and as having met
the Buddha, while the Jain Agamas speak of these rulers of Magadha as
contemporaries of Mahavira and as having met Mahavira. For instance, according
to the Sutta Nipata, Bimbisara first met the Buddha seven years before the latter
became enlightened and met him for the second time when Buddha came to
Rajagriha after having become enlightened. The Sammannaphala Sutta describes
the first meeting of Buddha with Ajatashatru. Likewise, the Uttaradhyayana Sutta,
describes Bimbisara, along with his wives, meeting Mahavira. The Uvavai sutta of
the Jain Agamas describes the relationship between Ajatashatru and Mahavira.
112
Shankaras Date
Surely, Buddha could not have been informed about the passing away of Mahavira
if the latter were not a contemporary but lived centuries after the Buddha and,
further, unless both Buddha and Mahavira were contemporaries, Bimbisara and
then his son Ajatasatru could not have ruled Magadha in their time and also met
them.
(2) A study of Kumarlas works shows that he is rather unlikely to have studied
the intricacies of Jainism from Mahavira rather than those of Buddhism from a
Buddhist. This is because, in his works, Kumarila displays an intricate knowledge of
the writings of Buddhists but not a matching, in-depth knowledge of Jainism. Further,
in his Shloka-vartika, Kumarila has explicitly and vehemently attacked Buddhism in
numerous verses. In contrast, he has only implicitly attacked the Jain concept of
omniscience. Moreover, when we examine even this portion of the Shloka-vartika,
it is clear that the attack was primarily directed at Buddhism. Here are a couple of
examples from that portion of Kumarila even explicitly referring to the Buddha. He
has, however, not explicitly referred to Mahavira.

(My utterance Buddha etc., are not omniscient, is true.)

(The statements of Buddha, etc)

(3) How could Kumarila have attacked Samantabhadra, who lived centuries
after Mahavira, if he were to be a contemporary of Mahavira? This attack is sensed
even by Jain writers such as Akalanka and Vidyananda. Further, Kumarila has again
and again attacked Dinnaga, Dinnaga has attacked the Nyaya-bhashya of Vatsyayana
and the Nyaya-bhasya contains an attack on the Dasavaikalika-nirukti of the Jain
scholar Bhadhrabahu, who, according to Jain sources, lived more than a century after
Mahavira. All this is impossible if Mahavira and Kumarila were contemporaries, as
claimed by the Jina Vijaya and the Brihat Shankara Vijaya.
(4) Mahavira lived in 6th century BC. If Kumarila were to be his contemporary,
then he could not have been aware of Vindhyavasin, Dharmakirti, etc., who lived
centuries after Mahavira. Yet, he was indeed aware of these persons, as we have seen
earlier.
(5) Some have argued that the statement of the Jina Vijaya that Kumarila went to
Mahavira to learn the tenets of Jainism must be accepted because its author subscribed
to a school other than that of Kumarila and Shankara and, so, is unlikely to have
113
Shankaras Date
manipulated biological information about Kumarila or Shankara. This contention

is, however, flawed, for, unlike the author of some Shankara Vijaya, it was certainly
in the interest of the author of the Jina Vijaya to claim that Kumarila was in no
position to refute Jainism and so came to a Mahavira to learn deceptively but was
exposed and punished for his treachery. On the other hand, it is to the author of a
Shankara Vijaya, such as the Madhaviya, that Kumarilas going to a Jain or a
Buddhist teacher would not make much emotional difference.
Moreover, if the statement of the Jina Vijaya that Kumarila went to Mahavira
should be given weight because its author belonged to a different school, then, by
the same standard, the assertion of the author of Manimanjari that Kumarila went
to a Buddhist, not a Jain, teacher must be given weight because its author belonged
to the Madhva school, was openly hostile to Shankara and had nothing to gain or
lose whether Kumrila went to a Jain or a Buddhist to learn. In the Manimanjari, it is
explicitly stated:

(Kumara (Kumarila Bhatta) then sought a Buddhist to learn that school.)
(6) I have tried hard to locate the Jina Vijaya but could not succeed. The
various Digambara as also Svetambara Jain sources approached by me were totally
unaware of such a text. Even the manuscript catalogues consulted by me yielded
no information about Jina Vijaya nor again was I able to locate Jain texts wherein
there were references to this text and where the contents of this text were used for
any historical purposes. Narayana Sastris writing explicitly reveals that he too had
not seen the text. He says that he got extracts from the editor of the Sanskrit
magazine Samskrita Chandrika. That editor is not alive now. Thus, even the
person who is said to have seen it is not available for being contacted. So, it is not
possible for scholars to study, authenticate and estimate when that book was written.
At any rate, even if it be that the Jina Vijaya exists somewhere or was
available in the past and contained the verses ascribed to it, it does not seem to be
regarded as authoritative or important by Jains themselves, for none of the many
Jain scholars whom I consulted were even aware of it.
(7) Numerous books written by Jain scholars are available on the life of
Mahavira. I have personally referred many books where details of Mahaviras life
have been given. Nowhere have I come across any reference either to the Jina
Vijaya or to Kumarila meeting Mahavira. If Jina Vijaya was an authoritative text,
why has this not been listed even in books where numerous ancient sources on
Mahaviras life have been mentioned? Why again have those books totally blanked
114
Shankaras Date
out reference to Kumarila meeting Mahavira and studying under him? The logical
explanation is that such a meeting did not take place.
(8) If Kumarila was a contemporary of Mahavira and attacked Jainsim, then
it is impossible to explain why no Jain scholar ever chose to answer Kumarilas
attack till more than 500 years after the dawn of the Christian era. It is ridiculous to
assume that over 1000 years had to elapse before Jain scholars could think of
arguments to refute Kumarila. This precisely will be the assumption that will have
to be made it we take it that Kumarila was a contemporary of Mahavira.
115
Shankaras Date
5. FIRST CENTURY BC VIEW

N.Ramesan can be listed as amongst the few who have sought to champion
the fixation of the date of Shankara in the first century BC. This seems to be a sort
of compromise between 788-820 AD on the one hand and 509-477 BC on the
other. As expected, the first century BC date is disapproved by the proponents of
both! We shall examine the grounds for fixing the first century BC and see if the
various arguments advanced by its supporters are tenable.
(1)The Sivarahasya verse pertaining to the birth of Shankara says:

(Great Goddess, two thousand years after the commencement of the Kali Yuga)
Since Kali Yuga started, according to tradition, before 2000 BC this proves that
Shankara must have lived in the BC period.
It must be noted that Kali Yuga is said to have started in 3102 BC. Hence,
2000 years after the commencement of the Kali Yuga would correspond to 1102
BC and not to first century BC! Moreover, the figure given does not suit the 509
BC theory also. To say that a rough estimate was given is ridiculous, for between
1102 BC and 509 BC, there is a gap of nearly 600 years. If 509 BC had been hinted
at, the wording would have corresponded to 2500 years after Kali Yuga and not to
2000 years after Kali Yuga. Since no one supports 1102 BC theory for Shankara,
the information provided by the Sivarahasya has to be disregarded as too general for
fixing Shankaras date.
(2) Maharishi Patanjalis Vyakarana Mahabhashya has been assigned the 2nd
century BC by some investigators. Tradition has it that Patanjali taught Gaudapada
who taught Govindapada, the Guru of Shankara. So, Patanjali and Shankara must be
separated by not more than 100 years. Hence, Shankara must have lived in the 1st
century BC.
The story of the story of Patanjali teaching Gaudapada, cursing the latter to
become a Brahma-rakshasa and of Gaudapada becoming freed from the curse
when, much later, Govinda learnt the Mahabhashya from him has been considered
earlier in connection with the 509 BC theory in the chapter Gaudapada and
Govindapada and seen to be suspect. Further, a long interval elapsed between
Shabarasvamin and Patanjali. It follows that a gap between Shankara and Patanjali
of 100 years or less is impossible.
116
Shankaras Date
(3) In Kashmir, there is a temple on Shankaracharya hill built by Jalauka, the

son of Ashoka. Since Ashoka lived in the 3rd century BC, the date of Jalauka points
to the 1st century BC for Shankara.
The argument about the Kashmir temple being associated with Shankara has
been demolished in the chapter Kashmir Temple. Let us now turn to Jalauka.
Ashoka was ruling in 268 BC and even if his son ruled till hundred years after this
date, we get only 168 BC, and not the first century BC. How then could the temple
and hill have connection with Shankara, if He were to be born in the 1st century
BC?
(4) Shankaras condemnation of Buddhism is well known. We can definitely
assert that Shankara must have lived at least a century after Buddha to allow
enough time for Buddhism to acquire that amount of prevalence as to merit
condemnation at the hands of Shankara. The golden age of Buddhism can perhaps
be considered to be Ashokas period. Hence, Shankara might have lived not long
after Ashoka.
Anyone can see that this argument is merely of the nature of a wild guess.
Buddhism flourished even in the time of Kanishka, who lived well after Ashoka. So,
just as it is argued that Shankara must have flourished around two centuries after
Ashoka, why not argue that Shankara flourished around two centuries after Kanishka?
Fa Hian, the Chinese pilgrim lived around 400 AD. In his time also, Buddhism was
thriving. Does this mean that Shankara had made negligible impact on Buddhism
in India? I do not think that anybody can answer this in the affirmative. In fact,
Shankara has clearly attacked the Yogachara, Madhyamika schools etc., of Buddhism
and these blossomed well after Ashoka. How then can Shankara be said to have
flourished shortly after Ashoka? In His Brahmasutra-bhashya, Shankara has severly
attacked the views of Charvakas, Bhagavatas, Vaisesikas etc. Are we to assume that
these were all attacked just after their golden ages? If that is not conceded, what is
the speciality of Buddhism that it alone should have been attacked just after what is
claimed to be its golden age? Shankara has attacked Jainism. Are we then to assume
that Ashokas time was also the golden age of Jainism?
(5) Some have dated the Brahmasutras to about 200 BC and so, the Bhashya
of Shankara on the Brahmasutras cannot be very removed from this. This evidence
also points only to 1st century BC.
In His Brahmasutra-bhashya, Shankara clearly speaks of people who had penned
expositions prior to His time. Upavarsha and the one referred to as Vrittikara are
among such earlier writers. It must be noted that even Shabarasvamin, on whose
work Kumarila has commented, has referred to Upavarsha. Hence, one must
necessarily admit a gap of much more than one century between the Brahmasutrabhashya of Shankara and the composition of the Brahmasutras. Moreover, Panini,
117
Shankaras Date
the sage who authored the Sutras that form the basis of Sanskrit grammar on
which Patanjali penned his Mahabhashya much later, mentions the Bhikshusutras
of Badarayana. These are presumed to be the Brahmasutras and, if they are, then
the Brahmasutras were in existence long before 200 BC.
(6) Kalidasa has spoken of Agnimitra who lived in 150 BC and so, must
have come after him. The inscription of 634 AD refers to Kalidasa and so he must
have lived before this. Likewise, if the Mandassor inscription of 473 AD be relied
upon, then Kalidasa must have florished between 150 BC and 473 AD. Kumarila
has quoted Kalidasa. Since Kumarila and Shankara were contemporaries, they both
perhaps lived near about Kalidasas time. Thus their date may be between 150 BC
and 473 AD.
Just because Kumarila has quoted Kalidasa, it cannot be decided that
Kumarila and Shankara lived close to the time of Kalidasa. Going by above
argument, anyone who quotes the Bhagavadgita must be said to have been born
long before Christ.
(7) According to the tradition of the Sringeri Math, Shankara was born
roughly in the 1st century BC.
The Sringeri Math authorities have formally denied this. Even if one were to
assume that the Sringeri Math accepts 1st century BC as the period of Shankara,
what is the worth of such acceptance, unless it is duly substantiated? Here, there is
no worthwhile evidence to substantiate such hypothetical acceptance.
(8) According to the Kanchi Math, Shankara was born in 509 BC and the
Math has a list of over 65 pontiffs. In the case of the initial pontiffs, the average
period works out to over 60 years, but thereafter drops to around 30 years. Around
30 years seems to be a more natural figure. Hence, if the periods of the earlier
pontiffs be pruned to give an average of around 30 years, then over 300 years will
get cut. Thus, here also, the period will work out roughly to around the 1st century
BC.
What the reliability of that Maths records is, we have seen earlier in great
detail. Hence, it is not necessary for me to repeat those arguments here. This apart,
how can such pruning be done without discarding the explicit statements in the
said records that specify details of the date of demise of each pontiff? If one is
willing to discard all these details because thay are incorrect, one might as well
discard the list itself as being on the same footing. Some have suggested cutting off
60 years in case of some pontiffs so as to keep specified cyclical years, month,
Paksha and Tithi intact. This also will not do, for the date of Shankara, duration of
a pontiffs reign, etc., are also stated in the said records. Further, cutting off 60 years
will, in many cases, lead to unnaturally small durations and even to periods of less118
Shankaras Date
than-zero periods for some pontiffs! At any rate, such changes can be done only if
one regards a substantial portion of the record details as unauthentic. If such be
ones view, how can such a one use those very records to fix Shankaras date?
I think I have touched upon the major arguments in favour of the first
century BC theory. I presume the reader will agree with me, if I were to say that
the arguments advanced to place Shankara in the first century BC are untenable.
119
Shankaras Date
6. SIXTH CENTURY AD
6.1
Purnavarman
The reference to Purnavarman in the Brahmasutra-bhashya of Shankara has

been relied upon to place Him in the 6th century AD. Shankara has written:

(Brahmasutra-bhashya 2.1.18)
(With reference to an unreal son of a barren woman, it is not declared The

son of a barren woman became a king before Purnavarman was crowned, whereby
he can be allotted some period, in the sense that he became, is becoming or will
become a king.)
Telang has advanced the view that the Purnavarman referred to was a
historical personality and that Shankara was the contemporary of that king. The
reasons given by him may be summarized as follows:
(1)The mere mention of Purnavarman itself shows that he must be a real
person.
(2) The illustration that Purnavarman did not succeed a barren womans son
is itself a reason to show that Purnavarman was a historical personality. This is
because Shankara should have indicated a real king, so that persons deficient in
historic sense would not mistake Purnavarman himself to be unreal like the barren
woman.
(3) If the lists of kings be scanned, two Purnavarmans are encountered, one
mentioned in Java inscription and the other mentioned by Hieun Tsang. It is
unlikely that Shankara mentioned the former. Thus, it follows that Shankara
mentioned the latter. This king ruled in Magadha and believed in Buddhism. He
revived the sacred Bodhi tree, which king Sasanka earlier attempted to destroy.
Sasanka was the one who was responsible for Rajyavardhanas death. Rajyavardhana
was the elder brother of Harshavardhana, whose court Hieun Tsang visited. In the
light of this, Purnavarman should have flourished in the 6th century or, at the latest,
in the early part of the 7th century, for he is stated to be earlier than
Harshavardhana. Shankara was a Brahmin, while Purnavarman believed in Buddhism.
Thus, Shankara would not have mentioned him in preference to some Hindu king
unless Purnavarman was actually reigning in Shankaras time. Further, there is no
120
Shankaras Date
need to have cited, in an example, a king who reigned earlier, in preference to a

living king.
Since Shankara was a contemporary of Purnavarman who lived in the 6th
century AD, it follows that Shankara too must have lived in the 6th century AD.
This, in short is the argument advanced with regard to Shankaras reference to
Purnavarman. Let us now proceed to examine the validity of this argument.
(1) Explaining a very similar point as Shankara, Sarvajnatman, the author of
Samkshepa-sariraka has said:

(It is akin to saying that before Yudhishtira there was a brave king who was
the son of a barren woman.)
Are we then to suppose that Sarvajnatman was a contemporary of
Yudhishtira and lived in 32nd century BC? Obviously not. On a similar ground, the
argument about Purnavarman and Shankara being contemporaries will not stand.
(2) Purnavarman certainly was not the only king ruling in India. If Shankara
did have to make a historical reference, there was nothing whatsoever to prevent
him from naming a Hindu king in preference to naming a king who held views
which Shankara strongly attacked. Hence, the chances of Shankara having referred
to the Buddhist king Purnavarman are remote.
(3) Purnavarman was not so great a king as to be known throughout the
country. Are we then to assume that Shankara was writing His Brahmasutra-bhashya
specially keeping in mind the people of Magadha, for it would have been unlikely
that people in South India would have known about this Purnavarman?
(4) In the course of His exposition of the Brahmasutra , apart
from mentioning Purnavarman, Shankara has given the names Yajnadatta and
Devadatta. Are we then to take it that these two were also historical personalities
who were contemporaries of Shankara? If we do, then we might as well place
Shankara after the 15th century AD, for authors who lived after that have also
referred to Yajnadatta and Devadatta.
(5) In commenting on the Brahmasutra , Shankara says:
121
Shankaras Date
(Nobody says Vishnu Mitra appears like the son of a barren woman.)
Are we now to take it that Vishnumitra was a real person and a
contemporary of Shankara since Shankara has used the present tense? If, here, we
take Vishnumitra as a mere name used by Shankara, then Purnavarman too could
well have been just a name used by Him.
In the light of these considerations I feel it will be clear that the use of the
Purnavarman by Shankara will not help in fixing his date. Before concluding this
section, let me remark that an attempt similar to what was indicated earlier has
been made with regard to the mention of Balavarman by Shankara. In commenting
on the Brahmasutra 4.3.5., Shankara has written:

(It is common for people to advise about guides on the way by saying From
here go to Balavarman, then to Jayasimha and thence to Krishnagupta.)
I do not know what will be the reaction of the reader if I were to point out
that an argument has been advanced that Balavarman, Jayasimha and Krishnagupta
were kings of different kingdoms. If so, the people in Shankaras time must have
been very strange indeed to ask travellers to meet kings in order to get directions
for finding their way! Next, it will become necessary to identify neighbouring kingdoms
for these kings!
6.2
Pataliputra
Telang was perhaps the first one to use reference to Pataliputra in the
Brahmasutra-bhashya of Shankara as an aid to set a limit on the date of Shankara.
To support the view that Shankara lived in the 6th century AD, an argument
employed by him was a follows: In the Brahmasutra-bhashya, Shankara has made
reference to Mathura, Pataliputra and Srughna. The reference should only be to
places which were actually present in His time. Now, Pataliputra was destroyed by
inundation by the waters of the Ganga in 756 AD. Hence, Shankara must
necessarily have flourished before 756 AD, thus ruling out the possibility of 788
AD, as held by Pathak, Max Mueller etc. We shall now evaluate this argument.
(1) Telang has not chosen to prove the destruction of Pataliputra by the
Ganges in 756 AD but has only given the relevant references. I have personally
122
Shankaras Date
gone through each of these and in the light of the reading wish to make the
following observations:
(a) The primary reference given is the Archaeological Survey of India
Reports of General Cunningham. Here, the reference to the destruction of Pataliputra
in 756 AD is derived by means of the following consideration. Chinese records say,
At the close of the years of Kan Yuen (about 750 AD) the bank of the river
Holung gave way and disappeared. Holung is identified by Cunningham with the
Ganga. Hence, the Chinese record has spoken of a bank of the Ganga giving away.
Why would such an event be reported by a Chinese record? It is because some
important place must have been destroyed. Pataliputra was earlier a very famous
city and the capital of a vast kingdom. It was on the banks of the Ganges. Hence,
its destruction is what had been referred to.
Surely, anyone will agree that this argument can hardly be called strong.
What proof is there to show that the record should have mentioned the bank
giving away only because Pataliputra was destroyed? Could it not be that at that
time a major flood had occurred in the Ganga, not necessarily at Pataliputra, and
so, it was reported? Do we not find earthquakes in order countries being reported?
Surely these reports do not necessarily refer to catastrophes only at capitals. This
apart, even the identification of the Holung with the Ganga as attempted by
Cunningham is not beyond question.
(b) Even assuming that the argument about the Chinese record pertaining to
the overflowing of the Ganga at Pataliputra be accepted, let us see what
Cunningham has to say about the extent of the damage. He himself conducted
detailed studies in the places concerned and so he should have known about the
extent of overflow. I now quote his words. He says, But the amount of cutting on
this face could not have been more than half a mile to one mile in breadth. (Vide
Archaeological Survey of India Reports, volume XI page 155).
The ruins of Ashokan monuments were nearly two miles from the river,
according to Cunningham. He also mentions that Fa-Hian, the Chinese traveller
(about 400 AD) had noted that the distance from Pataliputra to the Northern bank
of the Ganga was one Yojana (about 8 miles). Thus, we see that even if the Ganges
caused damage to Pataliputra around 750 AD, the entire city was not destroyed.
So, even if we take it that Shankara was referring to an existing Pataliputra after
756 AD, there would be nothing incongruous about it.
(2) Vacaspati Mishra lived in the 9th century AD and he has made explicit
reference to Pataliputra. The Jain scholar Vidyananda who certainly lived after 756
AD has also explicitly referred to Pataliputra. In his Asta-sahasri, he has indicated
we know that Pataliputra or Chitrakuta contains
123
Shankaras Date
(3) Patanjali has, in his Mahabhashya, explicitly mentioned Srughna and

Pataliputra, which are precisely the places referred to by Shankara. It is likely that
Shankara was using the analogies found in famous earlier works.
(4) That Shankara was referring merely to places which were earlier well
known is clear from the following considerations. Fa Hian, who lived around 400
AD, visited Pataliputra. He has said, The ruins still exist with reference to the
ancient palace constructions. Hieun Tsang, who travelled in the period 629-645
AD, remarks about Pataliputra which he visited: Although it has been long
deserted, its foundation walls atill survive. About Srughna which also he visited,
the Chinese traveller says, It is deserted although its foundations are still strong.
These statements show that Pataliputra and Srughna could not have been anywhere
as important even in the 6th century as they were many centuries earlier. Hence,
Shankaras reference to them could only be because these were very famous once
and because ancient writers such as Patanjali have referred to them. Shankara has
written that a man could not be at Srughna and Pataliputra on the same day.
To conclude, the reference to Pataliputra in the Brahmasutra-bhashya does
not help in ascertaining the period of Shankara.
6.3
Kongudesa Rajakkal
Telang, in support of his 6th century AD date for Shankara, has employed an
argument pertaining to a Tamil chronicle. He points out that in the Tamil chronicle
titled Kongudesa Rajakkal, which is found in the Mackenzie collection, there is a
statement that Shankaracharya converted to Saivism, a king named Tiruvikrama.
This king lived in the 6th century AD and so Shankara must have lived in the same
period.
Let us discuss this further. We read of the following effort of Professor
Dowson. He has worked backwards with regard to the chronicle periods and
deduced that Tiruvikrama I lived in the 6th century AD and that Tiruvikrama II
lived in the 8th century AD. He also suggested that the one Shankara converted
could indeed have been Tiruvikrama II of the 8th century. If so, this sets aside the
conclusiveness of the 6th century view.
Telang does not appear to accept Dowsons dates and cites Bhandarkar as
an authority. He states that in 1874, Bhandarkar had taken up the matter in the light
of copper plates then recently discovered and concluded that Tiruvikrama I
flourished in the 4th century AD while Tiruvikrama II flourished in the 6th century
AD. Since copper plates support the view that Tiruvikrama II flourished in the 6th
century AD, this should be taken as final.
124
Shankaras Date
The interesting point to be noted is that Fleet has denounced these plates as
forgeries. Fleets statement must be given much weight for he himself was responsible
for bringing to light one of these plates. He writes (vide Indian Antiquary Vol XII,
1883), Seven Ganga Copper plate grants have been published by Mr. Rice and one
by myself and three stone tablet inscriptions by Mr. Kittel Even with regard to
what was brought to light by him, he says, there are incontrovertible grounds for
stamping this grant at once as spurious. I shall summarise some of the arguments
in Fleets words.
(1) Characters in which it is engraved show most conclusively that it is a
forgery of not earlier than end of 9th century AD.
(2) The date arrived at cannot possibly be made to fit in with the dates
established by other grants for subsequent generations of same dynasty.
(3) And further still, this grant of Saka 169 and the Merkara grant of the year
388 and the Nagamangala grant of Saka 698 were all engraved, on their own
showing, by one and the same man, Visvakarmacharya.
(4) The other grants may all be criticized in the same way, palaeographically
and on other grounds.
(5) These grants all agree in respect of the first three generations of the
dynastyand the grant published by myself gives Saka169 as the date of Harivarma.
Now amongst the numerous stone tablets extent at Lakshmeswar, there is one
of the Ganga Dynasty which gives exactly the same account of these three
generations and records a grant made by Marasimha, the younger brother of
Harivarma in Saka 890.
In the light of Fleets points, it should be clear that the very basis on which
Telang relied to fix Tiruvikramas date is dubious. This apart, Burnell has shown in
his Elements of South Indian Palaeography that the reference in question is not
to a Chera or Ganga king but to one of the Chalukya dynasty. I am not arguing in
favour of Burnells contention but wish to use the occasion to point out an
implication, that even the proper identification of the king is uncertain. Another
point advanced years ago was that the reference to Shankara was an error. Yet
another point to be noted is that Shankara was an Advaitin and not a Saivite and so
the point pertaining to Tiruvikrama being converted to Saivism by Adi Shankara is
questionable.
In view of these short comings, the Kongudesa-Rajakkjal-based argument to
fix Shankaras period as the 6th century is unsound.
125
Shankaras Date
6.4
Bana, Dandin and Shankara

Telang has argued in favour of his sixth century AD theory as follows:
(1) In the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, it is said that Shankara debated with
Dandin and Bana.
(2) Bana lived in the seventh century and was a contemporary of Harshavardhana. However, part of his career must have extended into the latter portion of
the sixth century as well. Dandin has been placed by some scholars in the sixth
century.
(3) Hence, Shankara, who debated with them, must have flourished in the
sixth century AD.
This argument is weak because:
(1) In the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, it is also stated that Shankara debated
with Udayana (vide chapter 15). We have already seen that Udayana flourished only
in the 10th century. Surely this does not mean that we should take it that Shankara
lived in that period. Further, it is impossible for Shankara to have been Udayanas
contemporary, for the latter has commented on a work of Vacaspati, who, in turn,
has written a commentary on the Brahmasutra-bhasya of Shankara.
(2) The Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya has devoted some verses to the debate
between Shankara and Bhaskara (vide chapter 15). This debate would make Bhaskara
one who met and lost to Shankara. How is it then that in Bhaskaras work we find
an unmistakable attack on the Brahmasutra-bhashya of Shankara and, further,
neither Shankara nor Sureswara has repulsed the attack? The fact is that Bhaskara
flourished after Shankara.
(3) Points 1 and 2 were given to show that just because the Madhaviya
mentions a debate between Shankara and someone, it does not follow that a real
debate of that form took place and that Shankara was the contemporary of those
persons. The author of the Madhaviya was clearly versed in the various Sastric
texts as the contents of the arguments presented show. He could have discerned,
just as we do, that Shankara could not have been the contemporary of all these
persons. Hence, it is presumable that he chose to do so to highlight Shankaras
being unbeatable in debate and His doctrine being impeccable.
In the light of such points, it can be seen that this argument of Telang will
not help in fixing the date of Shankara as it is inconclusive and since contradictory dates
would result if the same argument were applied to the other debates referred to in
the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya.
126
Shankaras Date
In the Anantanandagiri Shankara Vijaya, Shankara is now and then portrayed

more as a rowdy with a gang of Goondas for disciples rather than as a scholarly
sage. Here is an example of Shankaras discussion with a Kapalika as presented in
the Anantanandagiri Shankara Vijaya (vide chapter 23).

(Why do you prattle, stupid one? I will have you beaten, said Shankara.
Then Shankara got him and his disciples beaten up by His (Shankaras) disciples.)
Here is another example which pertains to Shankaras meeting Vyasa who
had come in the guise of an old man (vide chapter 52).

(Shankara slapped the face of the old man who was speaking obstinately.
Then He told His close disciple Padmapada, Throw this old man, the supreme
opponent, upside down and, grasping him by the toes, discard him at a distance.)
The reader may have wondered why I had chosen to cite these examples
from the Anantanandagiri Shankara Vijaya. The reason is to show that in Shankara
Vijayas whether they are poetically good Kavyas written in scholarly style as in the
case of the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya or whether they are strange ones like the
Anantanandagiri Shankara Vijaya, we have to allow for the liberties taken by the
authors with regard to some historical facts.
To conclude, neither the argument just considered nor the others advanced
by Telang in favour of the sixth century AD theory are sound.
127
Shankaras Date
7. EIGHTH AND NINTH CENTURY AD THEORIES

7.1
General points about Eighth and Ninth Century views
In this chapter, I shall present and examine, one by one, the points that have
been advanced to claim that Shankara did not live earlier than the eighth century AD.
The grounds on which the year of His advent is specifically taken to be 788 AD or
805 AD will be considered in the subsequent chapters.
1. Cambodian inscription
As per a Cambodian temple-inscription, Sivasoma was the preceptor of King
Indravarman. Indravarman reigned from 877 to 889 AD. The inscription, which is
in honour of Indravarman and also contains a eulogistic account about Sivasoma,
records that Sivasoma learnt the Sastras from Bhagavat-Shankara (=Bhagavan
Shankara). The portion concerned is:

(He learnt the Sastras from Bhagavan Shankara.)
It is contended that Bhagavan Shankara, the Guru of Sivasoma, is none
other than Adi Shankara and that as Sivasoma flourished in the last quarter of the
ninth century (during the reign of Indravarman when the inscription was made),
Shankara should have been alive for some years at least in the ninth century.
To assess the argument, I looked for and obtained in publications (primarily
in The Inscriptions of Kambuja by R. C. Majumdar) the full text and other details
of this inscription. The Prasat Kandol (North) Inscription of Indravarman (No. 54)
contains 48 verses in Sanskrit and 49 lines in Khmer. Hardly anything remains of
the first nine verses, verses 10-28 contain a praise of Indravarman, verses 29-42 are
about Sivasoma and the remaining verses are largely illegible. The portion in
Khmer commences with an invocation of Bhadreshwara and contains a big list of
slaves. Presumably, the inscription was made at the consecration of Bhadreshwara
(Lord Siva?) by Sivasoma. Following the eulogy of Indravarman, such as in verse
20 wherein it is said that his commands were obeyed in China, Champa and
Yavadvipa, it is stated in the first of the verses about Sivasoma that he was the
kings Acharya. Jayavarman II founded the Khmer empire around 800 AD and
from the next verse, it can be discerned that Sivasoma was Jayavarmans maternal
uncles grandson.
128
Shankaras Date
(1) The reference to Bhagavan Shankara occurs in the 39th verse. That verse
in full and the succeeding verses about Sivasoma are as follows:

(39)

(40)
(41)

(41)
(He learnt the Sastras from Bhagavan Shankara, whose lotus-feet are savoured
by the swarming bees that are the heads of all scholars. He (Sivasoma) is the abode
of all learning, knows the Veda (by rote) and is a Brahmins son. Bhagavan Rudra
(God Siva?) is his master and he is like a second Rudra. Having served different
scholars, advanced in age and learning, he acquired an ignited intelligence springing
from Tarka (logic), literature, etc. He was proficient in the Sastras in the Puranas,
Mahabharata, Saiva(-agama) in its entirety, grammar, etc., as though he himself
were their author.)
It is significant that while Sivasoma is said to have mastered logic, literature,
grammar, the Puranas, Mahabharata and Saiva, with emphasis that he was proficient
in Saiva in its entirety, nowhere is it mentioned that he had learnt Vedanta. It is
inconceivable that Adi Shankara would have omitted to teach (Advaita-)Vedanta to
Sivasoma if the latter had indeed been His disciple and, instead, spent years teaching
him grammar, Saiva philosophy in its entirety, etc. Hence, the Shankara of the
inscription from whom Sivasoma learnt the Sastras should be someone other than
Adi Shankara.
(2) Not just some months but a few years are required to learn a single Sastra.
From the use of the plural form in verse 39, it is clear that Sivasoma learnt
three or more Sastras from Bhagavan Shankara. For this, even if he were quick
learner, he must have spent over six with his Guru. So, if Sivasoma did come to
India as a Brahmachari to learn various Sastras, it is likely that he would have gone
to, dwelt for years with and studied under some reputed householder-scholar. It is
improbable that he would have, instead, approached a Paramahamsa-samnyasi
129
Shankaras Date
constantly on the move such as Adi Shankara and that too not to imbibe Vedanta
to secure absolute liberation but to learn grammar, etc. Thus, the Shankara of the
inscription was probably some great, householder-scholar of India or even Cambodia.
(3) A verse about Sivasoma occurring prior to the ones cited earlier is:
(32)
(Drinking up the entire ocean of the Sastras and restraining the mountain of
attachment, he is always a Dakshinacara (a worshipper of Shakti according to the
Dakshina-variety of Tantric practice) and is like a second Kumbhayoni (Sage
Agastya, who is said to have drunk up the ocean completely and restrained the growth
of the Vidhya Mountains).)
Since Sivasoma is described as always a Dakshinachara, he must have been
a committed Tantrik. So, it may be supposed that his Guru, the Shankara of the
inscription, was a Tantrik.
(4) Shankara is not a rare name and it is one of the well-known epithets of
Lord Siva. Hence, just because the inscription records that Sivasoma learnt the Sastras
from Shankara, one cannot conclude that this Shankara was Adi Shankara.
In view of the identification of the Shankara of the inscription with Adi
Shankara being quite questionable, it cannot be decided in the light of the inscription
that Shankara was alive in the ninth century AD.
2. Kollam era
There is a tradition associating the Kollam era with Shankara. The Kollam era starts
in 825 AD and so, Shankara must have been alive in the ninth century. In the book
The Throne of Transcendental Wisdom, K.R. Venkataraman writes (vide page 6
of 1967 edition), Kerala tradition connects the year of commencement of the
Kollam era (AD 825) with a prominent incident in Sri Samkaras life; some assert
that it commenced five years after Sri Samkara left this world.
(1) To ascertain how the Kollam era originated, I scanned various books on
the history, culture etc., of Kerala. I found that more than one author admitted that
there was no unanimity in the specification of the basis of the Kollam era. For
instance K.V. Krishna Ayyar writes in The Zamorins of Calicut: Its origin, inspite
of numerous attempts made to explain it, still remains a mystery. More than one
view is aired by M.G.S. Narayanan in Cultural Symbiosis in Kerala. I have named
130
Shankaras Date
just two of the several books wherein the origin of the Kollam era is said to be
uncerain.
One view is that the Kollam era is associated with the founding of the city
of Kollam (Quilon) in 825 AD. It is said that amongst the earliest records dated in
the Kollam era are the Mampalli copper plates of Srivalluvan Kota and the Kollam
Rameswaram stone inscription of Rama Kulasekhara. Both these were issued from
Kollam. When there is a strong possibility that the era was not at all connected
with Shankara, the Kollam era cannot serve as any definite means for the fixation
of Shankaras date.
(2) I had occasion to come across the following tradition associating the
Kollam era with Shankara: The Kollam era was associated with the introduction of
Anachara (unorthodox practices) in Kerala. If this was the Prominent incident
referred to earlier, then it makes sad reading. The tradition associating Shankara
and the Kollam era through the introduction of Anachara is unlikely to have any
solid basis, for it is difficult to conceive that anybody rational would have ignored
every incident in Shankaras life barring the so-called Anachara-introduction and
started an era to highlight it.
The Anachara in question is presumably what one comes across in the story
(vide Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya) to the effect that Shankara pronounced a curse
when His relatives refused to cooperate with Him when He sought to cremate His
mother in keeping with the promise He had made to her earlier. Shankara is supposed
to have said:

(Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya chapter 14)
(He cursed, From today let the cremation ground be in the backyard of
your houses. Hence, even now the people of this land do not study the Vedas nor
do they offer Bhiksha to Samnyasis.)
Why would any level-headed one start an era to commemorate this Prominent
incident.
(3) The argument to the effect that the Kollam era was started five years
after the death or disappearance of Shankara is on an even weaker footing than the
argument about the Prominent incident. We have heard of an era associated with
the Nirvana of Buddha and one associated with the Nirvana of Mahavira. We have,
however, yet to come across an era that was started five years after death of a
131
Shankaras Date
person. Surely, it would have been far more sensible to start it in the year of
Shankaras disappearance. To say that the news of Shankaras disappearance
reached Kerala only five years after His disappearance will not change the situation,
for the news should have been of the form, Sri Shankara disappeared five years
ago. Thus, the era could very well have been adjusted to start in the year of
disappearance. To start it five years later would betray very odd behavior on the
part of the one who started the era.
(4) If indeed the Kollam era had been associated with Shankara, it is
inexplicable why it should bear the name Kollam, a word which is unconnected
with Shankara. Would it not have been named Shankara era or something like that
if it was meant to commemorate Shankara? Such questions go further to expose
the weakness of the Kollam-era argument for fixing Shankaras date.
3. Kerala King
K.R. Venkataraman writes in The Throne of Transcendental Wisdom (page
5, 1967 edition), Guruvamsakavya speaks of a Kerala chief Rajasekhara, who
wrote three dramas under pseudonym Saktibhadra which he had read out to Sri
Samkara. Rajasekhara is a surname probably of a Kulasekhara of the eighth-ninth
century, who is reputed to have composed three dramas. The implication is that
Shankara should have flourished in the eighth or ninth century AD since the king
ruled at that time.
(1) The story regarding the Kerala king is found in the Madhaviya Shankara
Vijaya but there the name of the king is not at all mentioned. One plausible reason
is that tradition did not reveal explicitly the name of the said king even in the 14 th
century when the Madhaviya is supposed to have been written.
The Guruvamsa-kavya is an account of the pontiffs of the Sringeri Math and
was not written by a pontiff of that Math but only by a Pandit and that too in the
18th century. It is surprising how such a Pandit chooses to supply information
about Shankara over and above the Madhaviya which is accepted by the Math as
the standard Shankara Vijaya. Hence, it is not necessary to lay undue emphasis on
the account of the Guruvamsa-kavya. Of course, this does not detract from the
intrinsic worth of the poetic work as also its description of the later pontiffs of the
Sringeri Math.
(2) All that has been said in the Guruvamsa-kavya about the life of Shankara
cannot be accepted unconditionally. In some places, the description contained in is
at variance with the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya. It, for example, speaks of Shankara
having met Visvarupa in Magadha (vide Canto 2 verse 45). Likewise, its description
of the last days of Shankara is unusual (vide Canto 3 verses 67 to 70). A few more
examples can be given but these should suffice. In the light such deviations from
132
Shankaras Date
the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, not much emphasis need be placed on the kings
name furnished in the Guruvamsa-kavya.
(4) It has been argued, as indicated earlier, that Rajasekhara is a surname
probably of a Kulasekhara. It can thus be seen that the identification of the king
seems to be of the nature of a conjecture. Are we to accept this conjecture just
because it suits the eighth-ninth century theory? The answer should be obvious to
any unbiased reader.
(5) What prevented the author of the Guruvamsa Kavya from giving
unmistakable information about the king concerned when he even chose to give
the kings pseudonym of Saktibhadra? Could it be that the said author himself did
not have accurate information with him? As a possibility of this form exists, the
Kerala-king argument is not a clinching one.
Before concluding this chapter, I would like briefly to touch upon some
inaccurate points made out in favour of the eighth-ninth century period in The
Throne of Transcendental Wisdom (1967 edition) and the article Shankara His
life and works (published in the magazine Tattvaloka, June 1978).
(i) Shankara lived after Bhartrhari who died in 650 AD.
I have already shown in the chapter Kumarila and Bhartrhari that while this
date of death of Bhartrhari was accepted decades ago, it is nowadays dismissed as
untenable. The reasons brought to light by scholars such as Kunjan Raja,
Rangaswami Iyengar, Frauwallner clearly demolish the 650 AD view and have been
explained earlier. The correct period of Bhartrhari was the 5th century AD and as
such his date will not help in assigning Shankara the eighth or ninth century.
(ii) Shankara has cited Kamalasila.
We have seen the erroneousness of this argument in Shankara and Dinnaga
as also in Misquotations and hence no further discussion on this aspect is needed
here.
(iii) Dharmakirti, who has been attacked by Shankara, was a contemporary
of Gopala, who reigned between 750 and 770 AD.
Dharmakriti was not the contemporary of any king of the second half of the
8 century. He has been explicitly named and praised by I-Tsing who travelled in
the period 671 to 695 AD. Dharmakirti was the contemporary of the Tibetan king
Srong btan-gampo who lived in the seventh and not in the eighth century AD.
Details about the date of Dharmakirti have already been given in the chapter
Shankara and Dharmakirti and repetition is unnecessary. Suffice it to say that
th
133
Shankaras Date
Dharmakirti flourished in the seventh century. Hence, his date will not serve to
place Shankara in the latter part of the eighth century or in the ninth century.
(4) Kumarila attacked Akalanka, who lived in eighth century.
This point has been dealt with the chapter Kumarila and Akalanka wherein
it has been shown that it was Akalanka who attacked Kumarila. The earlier chapters
Kumarila and Dharmakirti, Kumarila and Santarakshita Kumarila and Prabhakara
and a later one, Shankara and Mandana Mishra contain data that disfavour the
position that Kumarila flourished in the eighth-century.
(5) Shankara has referred to Purnavarman and Balavarman who were
historical personalities.
I have already considered the weakness of this argument under the heading
Purnavarman in the course of discussions on Telangs arguments in favour of a
sixth century date for Shankara. The relevant chapter may be referred by the
interested reader.
7.2
Hymns of Shankara
It has been argued that Shankara has referred to some of the Nayanmars
(Tamilian Shaivite saints) in a few of His hymns (vide the souvenir The call of
Sringeri, 1979). The saints spoken of whose periods would be of consequence in
fixing the date of Shankara as 8th century AD or later are: Siruthondar Nayanmar
(7th century AD), Iyerpagai Nayanmar (not earlier than 7th century AD) and
Thirujnana Sambandar (7th century AD).
The reference to Siruthondar and Iyerpagai Nayanmars is said to be found
in the 13th verse of the Sivabhujanga Stotra. The verse is:

The meaning of the first two Padas is, I am incapable of doing even a little
act of treachery. Girisha, I do not know how You are pleased? The third and
fourth Padas are interpreted to convey that Siva was pleased with a person who
134
Shankaras Date
was treacherous to his wife, with a person who was treacherous to his son and with
a person treacherous to his father.
It is contended that the (one treacherous to ones wife) meant is
Iyerpagai Nayanmar who is said to have given away his wife to serve a man who
appeared to be a holy devotee of Siva. The wife also gave her consent and the
Nayanmar himself accompanied the holy one, who was actually none other than
Siva. The Lord soon revealed Himself and blessed the couple.
Next, it is held that the

(one treacherous to ones son) meant is
Siruthondar Nayanmar. The Nayanmar was then Paranjoti, an army general. To him
came a Bhairava who wanted his host to sacrifice his (hosts) son. The boys
parents agreed to oblige the holy one and killed the boy. The Bhairava then revealed
Himself as Siva, revived the boy and blessed the couple.
I will now try to analyse the arguments.

. The word as used in the verse
(1) The verse contains the word
means, One who was treacherous to ones wife and son and cannot be interpreted
to contain references to two individuals, a person treacherous to his wife and the
other treacherous to his son. The word is used in the 6th case singular (note the use
of ) and so the question of reference of two persons is ruled out. Further, the
is as follows:
Vigrahavakya for the compound

This shows that the reference is only to one individual and not to two
persons. Hence, the attempt to locate references to two different individuals will
not hold water unless we assume a grammatical fault in the verse in which case
Shankaras authorship of it will become suspect.
(2) It is not as though only Iyerpagai Nayanmar was treacherous to his son
and yet specially graced by Siva and, likewise, Siruthondar Nayanmara was not the
only one who was treacherous to his son and yet specially graced by Siva. For
instance, another one treacherous to ones wife who was extraordinarily graced by
Siva was Chandra. Chandra (Moon) promised to view all his 27 wives with equality
but proved to be partial to Rohini alone. Further, he even eloped with his Gurus
wife Tara and restored her later. These acts clearly show that Chandra was guilty of
treachery to his wife. Inspite of this, Siva graced Chandra and even placed him on
His head.
135
Shankaras Date
Thus we see that if there is no grammatical fault in the verse, then

references to the pair of Iyerpagai nayanmar and Siruthondar is ruled out. Even if
we take it that due to grammatical fault, we can read references to two persons,
one treacherous to ones wife and another treacherous to ones son, then also the
identification is non-unique and, hence, inconclusive.
Thirujnana Sambandar is said to be another Tamilian saint alluded to by
Shankara. As he is regarded as having flourished in the 7th century, Shankara
should have lived later, in the 8th century AD. The allusion is said to be contained
in the 75th verse of the Soundaryalahari. That verse is:

-

(O Daughter of the mountain! I think the milk of Your breasts flows as if it
were an ocean of milk, from Your heart, in the form of Saraswati (milk of poetry).
Graced by You, on tasting it, Dravida-sisu (the Dravida child) became a greatly
renowned composer amongst great poets.)
It is argued that the Dravida-sisu (Dravida child) was Thirujnana Sambandar,
who is said to have been given milk by the Goddess at Sirkazhi. The point to be
noted is that the identification is questionable. I had occasion to refer to nine
commentaries on Soundaryalahari and shall cite select views expressed therein.
(1) In the commentaries Soubhagyavardhini, Arunamodini, Anandagiriya,
and Padarthachandrika, the Dravida-sisu is identified with Shankara Himself. A
story to the effect that Goddess gave milk to Shankara, when He was a child, is
current even today in Kerala.
Yet another interpretation is that the reference is to an incarnation of
Subrahmanya at Kanchi, the child having been given milk by the Goddess. (It may
be noted that the Thirujnana Sambandar incident is not associated with Kanchi).
The mention of this incident is found in commentaries such as Anandagiriya,
Tatparyadayini, Dindimabhashya, Gopala-sundari, and Anandalahari-tika (It
may be noted that some commentators have given more than one interpretation). A
different interpretation is that Dravida-sisu refers to a person named Pravarasena,
son of Dramida. Thus we see that multiple possibilities have been presented. As
such, the identification of Dravida Sisu of the verse with Thirujnana Sambandar is
quite debatable.
136
Shankaras Date
(2) Shankaras being the author of Soundaryalahari has itself been

questioned. Some commentators have pointed out that the original author of the
hymn is not conclusively known. For instance, in Dindima, Rama Kavi writes:

(Some say that Siva composed this hymn, while some others hold that Sivas
partial incarnation Shankara composed it. Some others hold that it emerged from
the effulgent teeth of the Primoidal Shakti Lalita. Thus various are the views.)
In the light of all this, it can be seen that the reference to Thirujnana
Sambandar is uncertain.
Since Shankaras references to Iyerpakai Nayanmar, Siruthondar Nayanmar
and Thirujnana Sambandar are all questionable, their periods cannot be decisively
used to set a limit to Shankaras date.
It is contended in the article Saiva Nayanmars in Sri Shankaras Devotional
Hymns that Shankara has alluded to Kannappa Nayanmar, Sakya Nayanmar and
Chandesvara Nayanmar also. As the dates of these saints are not the seventh
century or later and so will not help to establish either the 8th century or 9th century
periods for Shankara, I am not dealing with these. In fact, it can be shown that
these identifications too are questionable.
For instance, in Sivanandalahari, there is mention of Siva being pleased with
worship by stones (verse 81). It is claimed that the reference is to Sakya Nayanmar
but this cannot be certain, for the reference can equally be to Arjuna. The
Mahabharata narrates the story of Arjuna performing penance to earn the grace of
Siva. The Lord, assuming the form of a Kirata, engaged Arjuna in combat in the
course of which Arjuna even used stones to attack Siva. In the Mahabharata we
have:

(Then Arjuna fought using trees and stones.)
137
Shankaras Date
The Lord, instead of being displeased, seemed to treat all this as worship
and graced Arjuna! In a similar manner, the other references can also be
questioned but all this is not essential here. Suffice it to say that the 8th century AD
or the 9th century AD theories cannot be established or supported by relying upon
some hymns that have been ascribed to Shankara.
7.3
788 AD Theory
Teile in Outlines of the History of Ancient Religions and by K.B. Pathak in

Indian Antiquary (vol XI, 1882) pointed to 788 AD as the year of Shankaras
advent. The former relied on a quotation by Yagneswara Sastri of a passage from
Nilakanta Bhattas Shankaramandara Saurabha. Pathak obtained his information
from a manuscript of unknown authorship belonging to one Govindabhatta
Yerlekara of Belgaum. It contained three leaves written in Balbodh characters. The
portion giving the date of Shankara was:

This conveys that Shankara was born 3889 years after Kaliyuga, which
corresponds to 788 AD. The passage pertaining to the year of death of Shankara is
reads thus:

This means that Shankara died in 3921 Kaliyuga, i.e., 820 AD.
Since some subsequent chapters themselves consider the latest period
beyond which Shankara could not have lived I do not deem it necessary to go in
for detailed discussions at this juncture. Some objections which can be raised
would be:
(1) The authors of Pathaks manuscript is unknown and further Nilakanta
Bhattas source is also in the dark.
(2) Pathaks manuscript could have been prepared only many centuries after
Shankara because therein accounts of Ramanuja (11th and 12th century) and
Madhva (13th century) are also found.
(3) Pathaks manuscript refers to Shankara as a Kushmandajata and draws
attention to Madhvacharya as an incarnation of the demon Madhu (vide Pathaks
138
Shankaras Date
article in Indian Antiquary vol XI). This is a sample of the historical dependability
and unbiasedness of the author of the manuscript!
(4) Mere chronograms cannot be relied upon without corroborative
evidence, for it is always possible for anyone with some knowledge of Sanskrit to
compose one to yield any desired date.
(5) If the details of Shankaras birth given in any work have to be accepted
without verification of validity then what is the objection to accepting the date
provided by the Keralotpatti? Therein Shankara is said to have been born in
Kaliyuga 3501, which corresponds to 400 AD. After all, in Keralottpatti also there
is a description of Shankara, as in Pathaks manuscript. The interested reader can
refer to an extract of the Keralotpatti published in the article, Dissertation of the
Malayalam Language in Indian Antiquary vol VII, 1878. A translation of the
relevant part is, He became incarnate in the province of Keralam, in the Desam
called Kaladi to the south of Aluvay in the illam of the place of his birth called
Kaipalle in the 3501st year of the Kali Yugam (400 AD).
Here is another example of a date furnished without corroborative evidence.
Bhaskaracharya the well-known commentator on the Lalitha Sahasranama has, in a
verse composed by him, placed Shankara in the first century AD. Such allocations
should be considered in the light of other evidence and not independently unless
they were made close to the period of Shankara. As far as Pathaks manuscript and
Nilakanta Bhattas writing are concerned, they are unbacked by corroborative
evidence and their authors periods are not close to that of Shankara for their
words to be straightaway given weight.
(6) None of the popular Shankara Vijayas gives information that points to
the birth of Shankara being in 788 AD. Moreover, there are grave differences
between what is given about Shankaras life in the manuscript cited by Pathak and
what is seen in the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, Guruvamsa Kavya, Chidvilasa
Shankara Vijaya, Vyasachaliya etc.
Thus, there is no firm evidence to establish that Shankara was born in 788 AD.
7.4
805 AD Theory
I had occasion to come across the 805 AD theory in the magazine

Tattvaloka (June 1978) as also in the Souvenir The call of Sringeri published in
1979 (Article titled The date of Sri Adi Samkara by K.V. Subbaratnam). The basis
for the 805 AD is the following verse of the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya wherein
the birth of Shankara is described.
139
Shankaras Date
The information supplied is to effect that the birth of Shankara was in a

Subha Lagna with a Subha planet in conjunction with the Lagna. The Grahas Sun,
Mars, Saturn and Jupiter were in Kendra and also in exaltation. The same
conditions are mentioned in the Vyasachaliya Shankara Vijaya as also in the
Guruvamsa Kavya. The holders of the 805 AD theory claim that these details are
not rebutted by the Childvilasa Shankara Vijaya, Govindanathas Keraliya Shankara
Vijaya, Rajachudamani Dikshitars Shankarabhyudaya and Anantanandagiris
Shankara Vijaya. The Chidvilasa Shankara Vijaya and Anantananda Giris Shankara
Vijaya state that five Grahas were in exaltation and the rest favourable. This
information is considered by the upholders of the 805 AD theory to be unopposed
to the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya. It is claimed that the Madhaviya furnishes a sort
of generally acceptable set of details about Shankaras date. It is further said that
examined astrologically over the last 3000 years, the position of the Grahas as set
out in the Madhaviya occurs only once and that is in 805 AD. We are also told that
on no other occasion in these 3000 years five Grahas were in exaltation.
Since the 805 AD theory has been proposed on the basis of the Madhaviya
Shankara Vijaya, a few observations about this work would be in order. As per the
text, its author is Madhava. The author salutes only one Guru in his Mangala-shloka
at the start of the work and that is Vidyatheertha, the Guru of Vidyaranya, who
was instrumental in the founding of Vijayanagar Empire and who flourished in the
14th centuray AD. Vidyaranyas pre-monastic was Madhava and it has been held
that the author of the Madhaviya was none other than Vidyaranya. Some critics of
the Madhaviya such as T.S.Narayana Sastri have, however, argued that it was
composed in its present form in the last century by Bhattasri Narayana Sastri, a
Pandit of the Sringeri Math, at the insistence of others, in order to glorify the
Sringeri Math. This charge is, however, unsound. The Madhaviya has two wellknown commentaries on it called Dindima and Advaita Rajyalakshmi. The
former was completed in Vikrama era 1855 or 1799 AD. The portion concerned is:
140
Shankaras Date
In Advita Rajyalakshmi it is written that it was completed in Salivahana era

1746 or 1825 AD. The reference concerned is:
Scholars have opined that the author of Dindima flourished in modern

Pakistan while the author of Advaita Rajalakshmi flourished in Nasik. Madhaviya
was published in 1891 with these two commentaries in the Ananda Ashrama series.
There it is stated wherefrom the manuscripts were obtained. Not one of these was
supplied by the Sringeri Math and this speaks for itself. The publishers have also
said that one of their sources was a printed edition brought out in Salivahana era
1789 or AD 1865 by Ganpat Krishnaji Press while another was a manuscript of
Salivahana era 1757 or AD 1836 supplied by Ranade. Other sources are also
mentioned. It is thus clear that even the commentaries manuscripts were available
in the early part of the last century. What then need be said about the original
which must have become popular before two scholars from two different regions
chose to elucidate it? Incidentally, Vavilla Ramasami Sastrulu and Sons had printed
the basic text in 1873 and this talles with the Anandashrama publication. It has also
been published later at Srirangam at the Vani Vilas Press. The texts are available
and people can verify for themselves to see that the texts match. This proves the
absence of text tampering. At any rate, the text must have been there well before
Bhattasri Narayana Sastri (a contemporary of the 33rd pontiff of Sringeri who lived
in the period 1858 to 1912) who is sought to be made a scapegoat on the basis of
what Swami Tapasyananda, Vice President of the Ramakrishna Math, has called
Bazar gossip in his introduction to his translation of the Madhaviya Shankara
Vijaya (published by the Ramakrishna Math). It may be further noted that T.S.
Narayana Sastri took care to make allegations about Bhattasri Narayana Sastri after
the latters death.
I came across an interesting piece of evidence that points to the Madhaviya
being centuries old. The Manimanjari of Narayana, a follower of Madhva the
founder of the Dwaita School, contains scurrilous and vulgar attacks on Shankara.
This Narayanas period was not distant from that of Madhva, who flourished in the
13th century. In this book we encounter the following dialogue between Shankara
and Mandana Mishra whom the text regards as non-different from Visvarupa.
The portion concerned is:

(Then Shankara went to the house of Visvarupa.)
141
Shankaras Date
Here Manimanjaris author has contemptuously said instead of .

(Mandana said to Shankara, Wherefrom do you come shaven head?
(Taking the question as addressed just to the head) Shankara replied, From the
neck. Mandana asked, I ask you of your path. (Punning on the word and taking it
as a question to the path) Shankara replied, What did the paths say? Mandana
said, Your mother is a shaven-head. (Taking it that as the paths answered
Mandana, their answer must pertain to Mandana,) the ascetic said, The paths have
spoken truly and engaged in punning on the words.)
In the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya, it is said in the eighth canto:
(Wherefrom shaven-head? From the neck. Your path is asked by me. What
does the path say? Your mother is a shaven-head. It is true)
The matching is obvious. I would now like to show that the author of
Manimanjari must have had in mind the text of the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya.
(1) The Keraliya Shankara Vijaya of Govindanatha was written well after the
14 century and so the author of Manimanjari could not have had it in mind.
Further, Govindanatha does not speak of Mandana Mishra.
th
(2) Both in the Calcutta and Madras editions of Anantanandagiris Shankara

Vijaya, the dialogues consisting of the query and reply pertaining to the path is
not found.
142
Shankaras Date
(3) Not that I recognize the Brihat Shankara Vijaya and Prachina Shankara
Vijaya as authentic but if we look at the quotations from these texts as contained
in the commentary Sushama on the Gururatnamalika, we see that Manimanjari is
not following these texts. Manimanjari states that Kumarila sought a Buddhist
teacher, and not a Jain teacher. In chapter 5, it is said:

It identifies Visvarupa with Mandana, as we have seen. Both these views are
not acceptable to the author of Sushama who relies on the Brihat and Prachina
Shankara Vijayas. Further disparities cannot be ascertained since the Brihat
Shankara Vijaya is not available in print and is also not found in manuscript form.
(4) In the Vyasachaliya, Mandana and Visvarupa are different persons. Also,
there, Shankara is received with respect by Visvarupa.
(5) In the Chidvilasa Shankara Vijaya, the part of the dialogue pertaining to
the path is not found.
Unlike all these accounts, there is a complete match with the description
furnished by the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya. It would be ridiculous to argue that
the the Madhaviya is based on the Manianjari, for the latter is a vitrupulent attack
on Shankara. No wonder, in retaliation, scholars devoted to Shankara have
composed Manimanjari-bhedini (destroyer of Manimanjari) and Manikayamanjari.
If Manimanjari were to utilize the text contained in the Madhaviya, Madhaviya
must have existed in the 14th century.
In as much as the purpose of this chapter is not to discuss the antiquity of
the same, with this background about the text on which the 805 AD theory has
proposed, I shall pass on to the topic on hand. With regard to the 805 AD theory,
we note:
(1) The Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya is a Kavya wherein all that is said cannot
be taken as historical facts. For example, is said there that Shankara debated wth
Bana Bhatta (of the 7th century) and with Udayana (of the 10 century AD).
(2) The Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya was composed many centuries after
Shankara and certainly not earlier than the 13-14th century AD. Hence its evidence
needs to be corroborated as far as historical dates are concerned.
(3) The author hardly seems to have had in mind the motive of furnishing
the date of Shankara. This is because he has not chosen to give either the year or
the Ayana or the month, or the Paksha or even the Tithi. This is certainly would
143
Shankaras Date
not have been the case if he was serious about speaking about the period of
Shankara. It is unfair to claim that the month, Paksa and Tithi have been implicitly
provided since by the application of the Katapayadi-sankhya rule to the name
Shankara, it follows that He was born in the second month (=2), in the first Paksha
(=1), on the Panchami Tithi (=5). This is because the Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya
gives just two reasons for Sivaguru having named his son Shankara. One of the
reasons is that his son was a bestower or doer () of happiness or good (). The
second reson was that Sivaguru had worshipped Siva (who is also known as
Shankara) as a result of which Shankara was born. Thus, the Shankara Vijaya does
not refer to Shankaras name being associated with the date of His birth. In the
absence of the Tirthi, Paksha and month being mentioned in the Madhaviya, it
cannot be ascertained, as claimed, that the planetary combination specified in the
Madhaviya occurred only once in the past 3000 years, in 805 AD.
(5) The claim that no Shankara Vijaya contradicts the date supplied by the
Madhaviya Shankara Vijaya is debatable. While Anantananda Giris Shankara Vijaya
and the Chidvilasa Shankara Vijaya claim that five planets were in exaltation at the
time of Shankaras birth, the position of the Madhaviya is that four planets were in
exaltation. This difference cannot be overlooked. Further, while the authenticity as
also the antiquity of the Brihat Shankara Vijaya are questionable, it is said to give a
different date and set of planetary positions. Moreover, merely because some
Shankara Vijayas are silent about the planetary positions, it is not justifiable to say
that they accord with the Madhaviya. It could well be that their authors had some
other planetary positions or none at all in mind.
Some subsequenty chapters are deveted exlusively to setting a limit on the
date beyond which Shankara could not have lived. So, I shall not present more
points here to illustrate the hollowness of 805 AD theory.
144
Shankaras Date
8. SECOND LIMIT FOR SHANKARA'S DATE

8.1
Vacaspati and Shankara
(1) We noted in the chapter Vacaspati and Udyana that Vacaspati Mishra
flourished in the 9th century AD and that he wrote the book Nyayasuci-nibandha
in the year 841 AD. If it were true that Shankara was born in 805 AD, then He and
Vacaspati would have been contemporaries. If Vacaspati wrote even his early work
Nyayasuci-nibandha only when he was 35, still, he would be only about six years
younger than Shankara. However, from his writings, we certainly do not get even a
single clue that he was a contemporary of Shankara. On the other hand, there is
scope to understand that he lived after Shankara. As noted earlier, he authored the
famous commentary Bhamati on Shankaras Brahmasutra-bhashya. In it, he has
considered Shankaras well-known disciple Padmapadas commentary, Panchapadika,
on the Brahmasutra-bhashya and disagreed with its views on certain issues. This
point is explicitly brought out by Amalananda in his Vedanta-kalpataru (commentary
on Bhamati). For instance, he has said in the Kalpataru:
,
(The conventional meaning has been stated in the Panchapadika. He
(Vacaspati) criticizes that.)
For Vacaspati, a householder, to have chosen to pen and written a commentary
on Shankaras Brahmasutra-bhashya and for him to have disagreed therein, at
times, with the Padmapadas Panchapadika, both the latter two works must have
gained some currency before that. This is improbable if Vacaspati and Shankara,
who had a short life, were to have been contemporaries, as would be required by
the 805 AD theory.
(2) Bhaskara has written a commentary on the Brahmasutras, attempting to
show that the Brahmasutras propound the Bheda-abheda view. This view, without
going into any details, may be roughly viewed as something between the Advaita of
Shankara and the Visistadvaita of Ramanuja. It has appealed to neither of these
two schools. Further, it has been attacked by the exponents of both. The point that
is pertinent here is that Bhaskara has repeatedly attacked the Brahmasutra-bhashya
of Shankara. His attacks are so clear and repeated that they leave us in no doubt
that Shankara was being attacked by him. Vacaspati Mishra has, in his Bhamati,
attacked Bhaskara and defended Shankara. This means that Vacaspati must have
written his book after Bhaskaras writing had gained some currency. Further, for
Bhaskara to openly attack the Brahmasutra-bhasya of Shankara, the latter work must
145
Shankaras Date
have become popoular. Thus, Vacaspati should have been not a contemporary of
Shankara but a later writer. It is noteworthy that while Sureswara has given a
spirited defence of Shankara in the Naiskarmya-siddhi (presumably his first work)
and in the Brihadaranyaka-bhashya-vartika against the attack contained in the
Brahmasiddhi of Mandana, he has not defended Shankara against the attack of
Bhaskara. Was it that Shankara was adequately removed in time from Vacaspati so
that Bhaskaras work had either not been written or had not become famous in
Sureswaras time? The answer does seem to be in the affirmative and if it is, then
the 805 AD view for Shankara will not stand. Even the 788 AD theory will be on a
weak foundation if the situation mentioned earlier were to be true.
The points made out in this chapter are intended to show that Shankara and
Vacaspati were not contemporaries. Since Vacaspati flourished in the 9th century, it
follows that Shankara could not have flourished later than the early part of the
ninth century. Hence the 805 AD theory is not unfeasible.
8.2
Vidyananda and Sureswara

Summary of argument
(1) Vidyananda has quoted and attacked Sureswara.
(2) Vidyananda flourished in the second half of the eighth century and the
first half of the ninth century.
(3) Thus, Sureswara and, hence, Shankara cannot be placed later than the
early part of the ninth century or perhaps the latter half of the eighth century.
Vidyananda cites Sureswara
Vidyananda was undoubtedly familiar with Sureswaras writings. For instance,
in his Asta-sahasri, he has explicitly named the Brihadranyaka-bhasya-vartika of
Sureswara and also cited verses from it. He has prefaced his quotation as follows:

(It has been said in the Brihadaranyaka-(bhashya)-vartika)
Date of Vidyananda
There are reasons to hold that Vidyananda, the author of works such as Astasahasri, was alive in the early part of the 9th century AD. I am basing the following
146
Shankaras Date
points about Vidyanandas date on an article by Pathak on the subject (volume 18,
J.B.B.R.A.S) and on the introductions (in Hindi), by Jain scholars, to some of the
published works of Vidyananda.
(1) Vidyananda wrote the commentary Asta-sahasri on the Apta-mimamsa
of Samantabhadra. In his Asta-sahasri, the author has explicitly stated that he has
followed the Asta-sati of Akalanka and has in fact made his commentary an
exposition of the Apta-mimamsa as also that of the Asta-sati. Hence, Vidyananda
must have lived after Akalanka, who flourished in the 8th century AD.
(2) Vidyananda has unmistakably attacked Dharmakirti, Prajnakara etc., and
even named them and so cannot have flourished earlier than the 8th century AD.
(3) Vidyananda flourished in the reign of the king Satyavakya. He has even
referred to this king in his Yuktyanusasana, Pramanapariksha and Aptapariksha.
This king was crowned in the first quarter of the 9th century AD.
(4) Vidyananda has also referred to king Sivamara in an indirect manner in
his (Jain) Shloka-vartika. This king was the son of Sripurusha who made a grant to
a Jain temple in Sripura in Saka 698, that is, in AD 766. Incidentally, Vidyananda has
composed a hymn in praise of the deity of this temple. Sivamara ruled till around
the middle of the first quarter of the 9th century.
(5) Vidyananda has referred explicitly to Kumarasena who flourished around
750 AD. Kumarasena has been referred to in the (Jain) Harivamsa-purana which
was completed in 783 AD as per its authors own admission.
(6) Vidyananda has attacked the Nyaya-bhashya of Vatsyayana and the Nyayabhashya-vartika of Udyotakara but has not referred to Vacaspatis Nyaya-bhasyavartika-tattparya-tika. So, it is presumable that his period is not after the 9th century AD.
(7) Vyomasivas Vyomavati, Sridharas Nyayakandali, Udayanas Karikavali
and Srivatsas Nyayalilavati are commentaries on Prasastapadas Bhashya. Vidyananda
has attacked only the first of these commentaries and not the other three. This
suggests that Vidyananda lived before the 10th century AD.
(8) While Prabhachandra, who came after Vidyananda, has dealt with Jayantas
Nyayamanjari, Vidyananda has not considered Jayantas work. So, it is presumable
that Vidyanandas period is not after the 9th century AD.
(9) (If Pathaks analysis is right then) Vidyananda has been referred to in the
Adi Purana which was completed by Saka era 760 i.e., 838 AD.
147
Shankaras Date
In the light of such considerations, the period of Vidyananda has been

ascertained to be about 775-840 A.D. Based on due analysis of the works of
Vidyananda, some Jain scholars have pointed out that Vidyananda authored Astasahasri after the (Jain) Shloka-vartika but before Aptapariksha and as such must
have written it around 810-815 AD.
Conclusion:
It is clear that Sureswara must have written his Vartika before the Astasahasri of Vidyananda. If we go by the judgement of some Jain scholars then the
date of Asta-sahasri works out to 810-815 AD. At any rate, it is before 840 AD. If
we allow a minimum of 15 years for Sureswaras work to become famous and for
Vidyanandas work to be written, then it is clear that Sureswara must have written
the Vartika by 800 AD. This rules out the theory that Shankara was born in 805
AD in which case Sureswaras work can only be placed around 825 AD. Placing
Vidyanandas Asta-sahasri after 825 + 15 = 840 AD is out of the question. In fact,
it is reasonable to place Shankara not later than the 7th century AD, for Shankaras
disciples work itself had become famous by around 815 AD.
148
Shankaras Date
8.3
Shankara and Mandana Mishra
Mandana Mishras period is important in setting a limit to the date of

Shankara. This is because he has attacked Shankara in his Brahmasiddhi. On the
other hand, Brahmasiddhi has been strongly attacked by Shankaras disciple Sureswara.
The question of whether Mandana Mishra later became Sureswara is not important
for the purpose of the present chapter.
Mandana attacks Shankara
siddhi.
On more than one occasion, Mandana has attacked Shankara in Brahma-
(1) Shankara holds that the Sthitaprajna (the person of steady wisdom)
described in the second chapter of the Bhagavadgita is one who has attained
perfection. Mandana demurs and declares that such a one is an advanced aspirant.
Vacaspati, who has commented not only on Shankaras Brahmasutra-bhashya but
also on Mandanas Brahmasiddhi and Vidhiviveka, sees Mandana as attacking Shankara.
Amalananda in his Kalpataru (commentary on) Bhamati) elucidates this. For instance
he says:

(The criticism of Mandana Mishra is that the Sthitaprajna is a practioner and
not an enlightened one.)
(2) Shankaras has stated that the force of Prarabdha is exhausted in the case
of a Jivanmukta (one liberated while living) only by experience, just as an arrow
that has been shot stops only after having flown its course. Mandana cites this view
and says that it is wrong. He says:
,
(Some think that Karmas that have begun to yield fruit are akin to a speeding
arrow or a (rotating) wheel which cannot be restrained and so there has to be delay
till they are exhausted through experience. That is false.)
In his well-regarded commentary on the Brahmasiddhi, Shankhapani explicitly
declares that Mandana has cited Shankaras view and criticized it. He says:
149
Shankaras Date

(He expounds the view of Bhagavatpada (Shankara) as They who. He
criticizes it by saying That)
(3) In the Brahmakanda of Brahmasiddhi, Mandana has detailed Shankaras
view regarding the antithesis of knowledge and action and then set out to condemn
this view.
Such instances reveal that Mandana has attacked Shankara in his Brahmasiddhi. For further details, the readers attention is invited to Mahamahopadhyaya
Kuppuswami Sastri detailed introduction to the Brahmasiddhi with Shankhapanis
commentary (Madras Government Oriental Manuscripts Series No. 4)
Sureswara attacks Mandana
Sureswara has given a very spirited defence of Shankara against the attacks
of Mandana. That he has attacked the Brahmasiddhi is generally accepted.
(1) In His Brihadaranyaka-bhasya-vartika, Sureswara condemns Mandanas
stance that realization cannot arise from the Upanishadic Mahavakya and that
contemplation is needed. In this connection, Sureswara speaks of the one he is
critising as he who thinks he is a scholar (but is not). He says:
On seeing the rest of the Vartika of Sureswara for this section, it is patent
that this is an attack on Mandana. Anandagiri, in his commentary Sastraprakashika
on Sureswaras work, explicitly reveals this and says:

-
(He brings up the exposition of Mandana and such others with the words
But others)
150
Shankaras Date
(2) Sureswara controverts Mandana in his Naishkarmya-siddhi with regard

to the relation between knowledge and action and also the knowledge generated by
scriptural utterances. Here is an example of an unfavourable reference to Mandana
in the Naishkarmya-siddhi.
-

More examples can be given but these should suffice for it is generally
accepted that Sureswara has refuted some of the views expressed in Mandanas
Brahmasiddhi.
Mandana and Kumarila
Tradition makes Mandana a disciple of Kumarila. That Mandana did not
flourish earlier than Kumarila is patent from his quoting Kumarila and from his
defending Kumarilas view and attacking Prabhakaras view in his works such as
Vidhiviveka and Vibhramaviveka. Here is an example of Mandanas citation of the
Shloka-vartika in his Brahmasiddhi. Mandana writes in the Tarka-kanda of the
Brahmasiddhi:
-
The cited verse is from the portion of Kumarilas Shloka-vartika.

From these discussions, it follows that:
(1) Mandana lived around the same period as Shankara and Sureswara, for
he has attacked the former and was attacked by the latter.
(2) Mandana did not flourish before Kumarila and is regarded as a disciple
of Kumarila.
Umveka and Mandana
Umveka, the reputed commentator on the Shloka-vartika of Kumarila, has
written a gloss on the Bhavana-viveka of Mandana Mishra. Hence, Umveka cannot
have flourished before Mandana. In fact, since Umveka records alternate readings
of Mandanas text, at least about 50 years should have intervened between Umveka
151
Shankaras Date
and Mandana. Here is an example of his recording alternate readings of the

Bhavana-viveka text:
A limit for Umvekas date

Kamalasila who flourished in the second half of the 8th century has, in his
Panchika (commentary on Santarakshitas Tattva-sangraha), has referenced a long
passage from Umvekas Tatparya-tika (commentary on the Shloka-vartika) on the verse:

This shows that Umvekas work was known to Kamalasila and as such,
Umveka could not have flourished after the second half of the 8th century AD. The
implication is that Mandana and, hence, Shankara could not have flourished later
than the first half of the 8th century. In fact, it is hardly possible for them to have
flourished later than the second half of the 7th century AD in view of the interval
of decades between Umveka and Mandana implied by Umvekas referring to different
reading of Mandanas work.
A second limit for Umvekas date
The Jain scholar Akalanka flourished in the second half of the 8th century.
Karnakagomin (Buddhist) who has commented on Dharmakirtis Pramanavartika,
has been attacked by Akalanka (for details vide Mahendralal Jains Ph.D thesis
published by the Bharatiya Jnana Pith and the book Akalanka Grantha Trayam).
Karnakagomin, in turn, has not only cited a long passage of Umveka but has
also mentioned him by name. For instance he has said in his commentary on the
Pramanavartika of Dharmakirti:

(However, Umveka says citation.)
Hence, Umveka must have flourished before Karnakagomin. Thus, we have
Akalanka referring to Karnakagomin, Karnakagomin to Umveka, Umveka commenting
on a work of Mandana and Mandana attacking Shankara. Since Akalanka lived in
the second half of the 8th century, it is unfeasible to assign Shankara any period
later than the 7th century AD.
152
Shankaras Date
Conclusion:
It is hard to assign Shankara any period later than the 7th century AD.
153
Shankaras Date
9. CONCLUSION
This is the most difficult portion of this book as far as I am concerned. The
chapter bears the title conclusion but there is nothing conclusive that I can say
with regard to the date of Shankara. All I can do is to place the results of my
analysis and draw inferences. Of course, if new evidence turns up then these results
may have to be modified. I do not pretend to have considered all the aspects of the
problem nor again do I believe that I have not erred. The only thing I am certain
about is that I have not acted against my conscience by deliberately seeking to
distort what I understood to be facts. This is the reason why I have not hesitated
to whole-heartedly support what I felt right and severely attack what I felt wrong.
If I have upset or hurt anybody, I request him or her to accept my heartfelt
apologies.
To present an overall view, the date of Gaudapada was considered first and
then that of Kumarila for Shankara did not live before them. After considering
Shankaras attack on the Buddhists, it was felt that adequate information would be
available to fix a period earlier than which Shankara could not have lived. The
results in this connection are as follows:
(1) Shankara flourished after Gaudapada who definitely lived in the AD
period, after Nagarjuna and perhaps even after Yashomitra of the sixth century
AD.
(2) Shankara flourished after Dinnaga who lived into the first half of the
sixth century AD.
(3) He flourished after Kumarila who could not have flourished earlier than
the second half of the sixth century AD and who should have been alive in the first
half of the seventh century AD.
(4) He flourished later than Dharmakirti who cannot be placed earlier than
the second half of the sixth century AD and who should have been alive in the
seventh century.
Thus Shankara could not have flourished before the first half of the seveth
century AD.
After considering this initial date based on the references made by Shankara
and the periods of the persons referred to by Him, a set of chapters were devoted
to considering various theories for Shankara starting with the sixth century BC
theory and ending with the ninth century AD theory.
At this juncture I wish to make two comments which I feel are necessary.
154
Shankaras Date
(1) While Shankara Vijayas could be used for setting the date of Shankara,
we do not have one written adequately close to Shankaras period for its verdict to
be directly relied upon, nor again is there unanimity among the Shankara Vijayas. It
is claimed that the Brihat Shankara Vijaya, which is not extant now in printed or
manuscript form, was written by Shankaras disciple but it was shown earlier that
the astrological data supposedly provided by it is fatally erroneous. Likewise, while
the author of Anantanandagiris Shankara Vijaya claims (at the outset itself) that he
is a direct disciple of Shankara, this work could just not have been written till many
centuries after Shankara. One of the reasons is that it explicitly cites a verse from a
work on the Brahmasutras by Bharathi Theertha, who flourished in the 14th
century. That the citation is indeed from Bharathi Theerthas work is confirmable
even from the list of citations provided by the editor of the Madras University
Edition of this Shankara Vijaya. Moreover, no data, astrological or otherwise, is
provided by Anantanandagiris Shankara Vijaya by which the date of Shankara can
be settled. All it says about the time of Shankaras birth is that it was auspicious
and that five planets were then in exaltation. Thus, because no extant Shankara
Vijaya was compiled till centuries after Shankara, on account of the absence of
unanimity among the Shankara Vijayas, and further because no authentic Shankara
Vijaya gives a definite, historically acceptable date, we have no alternative but to
forego the use of Shankara Vijayas to directly fix Shankaras date.
(3) Math records might have served to fix the date of Shankara but
unfortunately in most of the cases the records are not authentic. This apart there is
so much mutual contradiction in these that, unless one is quite partisan in ones
attitude, no conclusion can be arrived at.
Having made these remarks let me set out the results of my analysis which
aimed at setting a limit to the date beyond which Shankara cannot be placed. In
this connection, the references to Shankara and His disciple Sureswara were considered.
(1) Arguments pertaining to Vacaspati show that Shankara could not have
flourished later than the first portion of the ninth century AD and perhaps not
later than the eighth century AD.
(2) Arguments pertaining to Vidyananda reveal that Shankara is not likely to
have flourished later than the eighth century AD.
(3) Discussions, taking into consideration factors pertaining to Mandana,
reveal that Shankara could not have flourished later than the end of the seventh
century.
(4) If Shankara was a junior contemporary of Kumarila, as uniformly made
out by Shankara Vijayas, then Shankara cannot have flourished later than the
seventh century AD.
155
Shankaras Date
These considerations reveal that Shankara cannot be placed later than the
seventh century AD. Thus taking into consideration factors to set both the limits
on Shankaras date, we can see that Shankara should have flourished in the seventh
century. This is the period arrived at by me. Suppose, however, that one were to
discard the tradition that Shankara and Kumarila were contemporaries and were to
find adequate evidence to discard the view that Mandana attacked Shankara and to
assume that he was a pre-Shankara Advaita-cum-Mimamsa scholar, then we will
have to give up what seems quite clear from a comparison of Mandanas
Brahmasiddhi and Shankaras Brahmasutra-bhashya, the testimony of the
commentators Vacaspati and Shankhapani as also the testimony of the subcommentator Amalananda. I do not feel that such steps are justifiable. Future
researchers may find more information in this connection.
Here the reader may wonder why I am broaching the topic of an eight
century date after having attacked arguments in support of such a theory. The
reason is that one point has been troubling me. This is as follows: If Shankara lived
in the seventh century then why did not Santarakshita, Kamalasila and Akalanka,
who were alive in the eight century, attack Shankara, especially when they had
chosen to attack Kumarila? It has been shown by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya
how Santarakshita has cited the Karikas of Gaudapada. To hold that these writers
did not attack Shankara because they were unable to come up with any points to
do so is hardly satisfying. When Ramanuja and Madhva could advance some
arguments, worthy or otherwise, why not these scholars? Could it be that Shankaras
work had not become known even by the end of the eighth century, over a 100
years after His writing them? Maybe, but why, is something I do not know. If we
go by the tradition that Shankara met Kumarila, then the age gap between
Kumarila and Shankara is not likely to be more than 60 years and the time
difference between their writings should be less than 50 years. Shankara is known
to have travelled widely and His writings are most powerful. Shankara has not been
lenient in his attack on Buddhism and Jainism. Such being the case His writings
should have spread adequately by the second half of the eighth century if we take it
that Shankara flourished in the 7th century. Was it that Shankara flourished only in
the early part of the eighth century and so the teachings did not have time to
spread? My study reveals that this could not have been the case but still the
question posed earlier remains. I leave it to the scholars to unravel the problem but
till then I wish to propose a seventh century date for Shankara. God alone knows
whether I am right or not.
156
Shankaras Date
Appendix I
Date of Ashoka
It is widely accepted that Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Ashoka,

was alive at the time of Alexanders invasion of India in 326 BC. This itself entails
that Ashokas period cannot be pushed back beyond the 4th century BC. However,
some have tried to argue against this and contend that the date of Ashoka should
be earlier than 1000 BC. I shall present their principal objections and also attempt
to answer them. The purpose of this exercise is to show that the currently accepted
date of Ashoka is in no need of revision. This will automatically rule out the theory
pertaining to Shankara being born in 509 BC. This is because the pushing back of
the date of Ashoka is vital for the protagonists of the 509 BC theory since the gap
between Ashoka and Buddha cannot be unduly stretched and since it is uniformly
accepted that Shankara flourished after Buddha and Ashoka.
(1) The generally accepted date of Ashoka, namely 3rd century BC is based
on numerous evidences. One such is Ashokas Rock Edict XIII which runs thus
inter alia:
So what is conquest through Dharma is now considered to be the best
conquest by the Beloved of the Gods and such a conquest has been achieved by
the Beloved of the Gods not only here in his own dominions but also in the
territories bordering on his dominions as faraway as at a distance of 600 Yojanas,
where the Yavana king named Amtiyoka is ruling and where, beyond the kingdom
of the said Amtiyoka, four other kings named Tulmaya, Antikoni, Maka and Alikya
Sundara are ruling and towards the south where the Cholas and Pandyas are living
as far as Tamraparani.
The kings mentioned in the Prakrit language of the rock edict are identified
by scholars as follows:
Name in Edict
Identification
Amtiyoka
Tulmaya
Antikoni
Maka
Alikaya Sundara
Antiyochus Theos of Syria (265-246 BC.)

Ptolemy Philadelphia of Egypt (285-247 BC.)
Antigonous Gonatus of Macedonia
Magas of Ceyrine
Alexander of Epeusus (272-258 BC.)
The periods of the foreign kings are known from the history of those lands
and so it is not for us to alter them. If Ashoka were to be a contemporary of these
kings it follows that he must have lived in the 3rd century BC.
We shall now consider objections that have been raised against this.
157
Shankaras Date
Objection 1:
The territories of the kings of Syria etc. are more than 3000 miles from the
North-West border of the Ashokan Empire and are 5000 miles from Ashokas capital.
Since 600 Yojanas corresponds to 2400 miles, the inscription cannot refer to these
foreign kings.
Answer:
A Yojana refers to a distance of 8 to 9 miles and not to just 4 miles as has
been stated in the objection. In support of this, here are some extracts:
(i) Aptes Sanskrit-English Dictionary defines Yojana as A measure of
distance equal to four Kroshas or eight or nine miles.
(ii) Monier Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary defines Yojana as Measure
of distance sometimes regarded as equal to 4 or 5 English miles but more correctly
equal to four Kroshas or about nine miles.
(iii) R.G. Bhandarkar, in his book on Sanskrit Grammar, defines Yojana as
eight miles.
Hence, it is clear that 600 Yojanas refers to a distance of 4800-5400 miles. So,
it cannot be argued that Syria is too far to be considered.
Kautilya, the author of the Artha Sastras, is said to have lived in the time of
Chandragupta Maurya. So, it is logical to assume that Ashoka should have gone by
the standards specified by Kautilya. Kautilya says:

(An Angula is the width of the middle part of the middle finger of a
middle-sized man.)
This means that an Angula is around 0.7 inch.

(108 Angulas make up a Dhanus.)
The other possible interpretation of 800 Angulas = 1 Dhanus must be rejected,
for it yields the absurd result of over 40 miles to a Yojana.
158
Shankaras Date

(Two thousand Dhanus are equal to a Goruta.)
(Incidentally, Goruta is the same as Krosha, according to the commentator.)

(Four Gorutas are equal to 1 Yojana.)
Direct multiplication shows that a Yojana works out to around 9 miles. At
any rate, it does not work out to 4 to 5 miles. If someone feels that I am
deliberately misquoting the Arthasastra, one can verify from various available
manuscripts. The following printed editions of Arthasastra may be referred to:
(a) Published by Motilal Banarasi Das.
(b) Published by Bombay University.
(c) Published by Sanskrit Samsthana.
A manuscript in Grantha script which was given by a Tanjore Pandit to the
Mysore Government Oriental Library is available. Here, in place of 2000 Dhanus
= 1 Goruta, we have 1000 Dhanus = 1 Goruta. This manuscript was the only
one available with Shama Sastry and Fleet (vide Fleets note to Shama Sastrys
book on the Arthasastra). This sole Arthasastra-based support for 1 Yojana = 4 to
5 miles is, however, very weak. This is because even Shama Sastry indicated in the
3rd edition of his book that while as far as the textual part of his manuscript was
concerned, 1000 Dhanus = 1 Goruta, in the commentary that went with the text,
2000 Dhanus = 1 Goruta. Thus, it is likely that in that particular manuscript, a
copyists error resulting in the loss of one syllable might have occurred.
Hence, we have it that even the Arthasastra of Chandragupta Mauryas time
considers a Yojana to be around 9 miles.
Objection 2:
It would be reasonable to identify the names mentioned in the edicts with
the rulers of Abhisara, Uraga, Simhapura, Kataka and Amra Parvata. These kingdoms
cover modern Afghanistan, the Western part of Kashmir and the North Western
part of present Northwest Frontier province. In fact, a king named Amtiyoka ruled
Simhapura in 1472-1436 BC and Amtiyoka is mentioned in the inscription of
Ashoka.
159
Shankaras Date
Answer:
In the first place, it cannot be conclusively proved that a king called
Amtiyoka ruled Simhapura in 1472-1436 BC. This is because he was neither a very
famous ruler nor did he found edicts like Ashoka nor again was he a great religious
leader. When an argument is at present going on with regard to Ashokas date
whose edicts we have and who is mentioned by numerous sources, how can it be
asserted that some far less important contemporaneous kings date has been fixed,
even in the absence of hard evidence?
If, even for the sake of argument, it be assumed that a king called Amtiyoka
did indeed rule Simhapura in the 15th century BC, we had no evidence at all that
kings whose names are mentioned in the edict ruled Abhisara, Uraga, Kataka and
Amra Parvata in that period. It will be merely a wild guess to assume that such
kings did rule in the 15th century BC. Such imagination may be useful for writing a
book of fiction, not historical books.
All this apart, it has been shown earlier that 600 Yojanas refer to a distance
of 4800-5400 miles. It will indeed be silly to mention this distance and then refer to
kings whose kingdoms were only a fraction of this distance from Ashokas capital
or border. To use the expression 600 Yojanas and then to refer to a nearby place
will be like telling a tourist within a distance of 5000 miles from Madras we have
Bangalore, Salem and Trichy.
Here is one more argument against the identification suggested in the
objection. In Kandahar, which is in the Southwest portion of Afghanistan, there is
a rock edict of Ashoka wherein we find Ashokas instruction to people that they
comply with the rules and be obedient to their parents and old men. Surely, Ashoka
could not have referred to another kings subjects and given them instructions.
Thus Ashokas references in Rock Edict XIII cannot refer to a king/kings ruling
over Afghanistan. This apart, Ashokas rock edicts exist even in Mansehra and
Shahbazgarhi which are found in the Northern portion of Pakistan. This also goes
against the identification with kings mentioned in the objection.
(2) Another legitimate argument to place Ashoka in 3rd century BC is:
From Greek sources we learn that there were three kings who ruled
Magadha in succession, whom the Greeks have referred to (in Greek) as
Xandramas, Sandrocottus and Sandrocryptus. Megasthenes, as is patent from his
own writing, visited the Court of Sandrocottus. Scholars identify Sandrocottus with
Chandragupta Maurya, the grandfather of Ashoka. Since Megasthenes came to
India in the 4th century BC, the period of Chandragupta, and, hence, that of Ashoka,
cannot be pushed to earlier than 4th century BC. Against this point also, some who
160
Shankaras Date
are in favour of far earlier date for Ashoka have raised objections and we shall
consider them.
Objection 1:
The identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya is wrong. The
identification should only be with Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty. This is
because the capital mentioned by Megasthenes is Pataliputra. This was the capital
of the Gupta dynasty and not that of the Mauryan dynasty. The capital of the
Mauriyan dynasty was only Girivraja and not Kusumapura, which is the same as
Pataliputra. This is supported by the Puranas. Even the Arthasastra of Kautilya,
composed in the time of Chandragupta Maurya, mentions the capital as Girivraja.
Answer:
It is wrong to say that Girivraja was the capital of the Mauryan Empire. This
is ascertainable on grounds such as the following.
(i) Ceylonese chronicles convey that Ashokas capital was Patalipura.
(ii) In Mudra Rakshasa of Visakadatta which describes some incidents
pertaining to Chandragupta Maurya, Kusumapura (Pataliputra) and not Girivraja is
stated to be his capital.
(iii) The dynasties of the Kali Yuga are described in the Matsya, Vayu,
Brahmanda, Bhavrishya, Vishnu and Bhagavatha Puranas. These do not say that
Girivraja was the capital of the Mauryan Empire. I have personally verified this and
anyone who has doubt in this regard is welcome to check up for oneself.
(iv) The Sisunaga dynasty ruled earlier than the Mauryan dynasty and in the
reign of king Udayi the capital was shifted from Girivraja to Kusumapura. The Jain
text Vividhatheertha Kalpa states that in Udayis time the city of Kusumapura was
built on the banks of the Ganga and the capital shifted there. The Puranas also
seem to have had this in view when they chose to speak of the construction of the
beautiful city of Kusumapura on the banks of the Ganga during the reign of Udayi.
(v) In the Arthasastra, there is no mention of Chandraguptas name and no
pointer to Chandraguptas capital being Girivraja. Hence, the claim in the objection
about support from the Arthasastra is incorrect.
Objection 2:
The identification of Sandrocottus with Chandragupta Maurya is wrong
because Magasthenes speaks of Sandrocottus having a navy and also speaks of him
161
Shankaras Date
being advised by a council. Both these are unknown to Kautilya, the author of the
Arthasastra, who was instrumental in bringing Chandragupta Maurya to power.
Kautilya knows the governance of the king only to be personal and autocratic. The
description of Megasthenes can correspond only to the Gupta period.
Answer:
Kautilya devotes an entire chapter to shipping and there one of his pithy
utterances is:

In the light of a commentary on the Arthasastra, the thrust of this aphorism
is, Unauthorised ships bound for the country of an enemy, as also those
transgressing the customs and regulations in port towns, should be destroyed. Are
we to assume that Kautilya had in mind people standing on the shore and throwing
stones in the hope of sinking incoming or outgoing enemy ships? This seems
rather far-fetched, does it not? The reasonable conclusion is that Kautilya must have
had in mind a naval force though he has not chosen to given any detailed description
of it.
As regards the king not consulting others, here are some statements of
Kautilya which go to show that what has been indicated in the objection is factually
incorrect.

(All administrative steps should be preceded by deliberations in a wellformed council.)

(In the opinion of Kautilya, the kings council shall consist of as many
members as demanded by the needs of his dominion.)

(The king shall act as the majority of the members suggest and abide by
whatever course of action, leading to success, they point out.)
162
Shankaras Date
I hope that these passages of the Arthasastra are sufficient to answer the
objection raised. More are available but I do not think it is necessary to quote them
here.
Objection 3:
Megasthenes speaks of Sandrocottus as a powerful king with a strong army.
Chandragupta was just a petty king who had to be brought to power by Chanakya
with the aid of other kings. Thus, the description of Megasthenes can apply only to
the Gupta dynasty and not to the Maurya dynasty.
Answer:
Who indeed, knowing history, says the Chandragupta was a petty king? The
descriptions of the Ceylonese chorinicles certainly disprove such a false view. It is
known that Ashokas edicts are found as far South as present Karnataka, as far
west as Afghanistan, as far North as Mansehra in Pakistan and also near the eastern
border of Orissa. If his kingdom were to be so vast, who had conquered the
territories? We know that after the Kalinga war Ashoka desisted from conquests.
Hence, the conquests must have been made earlier. It would be unjustifiable to
give all credit to Bindusara and no credit to Chandragupta.
The Tamil poets Mamulanar, Paran Korranar and Attiraiyanar have spoken
explicitly of the Mauryan invasion of the South in golden decked chariots. There is
no reason at all for these patriotic poets to describe the victory march of some
external king unless such an invasion did take place. This would show that the
Mauryans were no petty kings.
An inscription of the Sah period, found in Gujarat, makes reference to
Chandragupta Maurya and to a tank in Gujarat. If Chandragupta were to have been
a petty king how could this have been the case, for Gujarat is far removed from
Pataliputra?
Objection 4:
In the Raja-tarangini of Kalhana, we find that Ashoka has been placed in the
15 century BC. This view should be accepted.
th
Answer:
No doubt Kalhana was a worthy writer but he lived after 1100 AD. Hence,
the records given of kings who ruled Kashmir many centuries ago cannot be taken
to be infallible. Even disregarding such an objection, it may be noted that Kalhana
does not specifically state Ashokas period. On the other hand, with regard to this
163
Shankaras Date
period, he frankly admits, in the first Taranga, that he has no definite information.
Let us take it, for arguments sake, that Kalhana did have 15th century BC in mind
for Ashoka. What then happens to the testimony furnished by the Ceylonese
chronicles Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa? They too are records of kings, though of
Ceylon and not of Kashmir. They state that Ashokas son Mahinda came to Ceylon
during the reign of Tissa and converted Tissa into a Buddhist. Ashoka also sent a
branch of the Bodhi tree to Ceylon during Tissas time. Such was the connection
between Tissa and Ashoka. As per the Ceylon chronicles, Tissas period is in the
3rd century BC. So Ashokas period has to be similar.
There are no grounds for disregarding the Ceylones chronicals and relying
solely on the Kashmir chronicle for fixing Ashokas period. The following points
may be worth considering:
(i) To Ceylon, the coming of Mahinda was particularly significant because its
ruler was converted to Buddhism. Relics of Buddha were sent to Ceylon and
Buddhism dug its roots deep in Ceylon. No wonder then that much is said in the
chronicles about Devanampriya, Tissa, Mahinda and Ashoka. On the other hand,
the advent of Ashoka had no such special significance for Kashmir. Thus, it is more
reasonable to look to the Ceylonese chronicles in this regard in preference to
Kalhanas Raja-tarangini.
(ii) Dipavamsa and Mahavamsa were written centuries earlier than the Rajatarangini. Hence, the probability of the early dates being recorded better is more in
the case of the Ceylonese chronicles.
(iii) Kalhana himself admits that details of 52 kings had been lost and Ashoka
was amongst them. Thus, there is greater chance of error in the Raja-tarangini than
in the Ceylonese chronicles as regards the time of Ashoka.
(iv) The description of Ashoka given in the Raja-tarangini differs somewhat
from what we know of him. An example is Ashokas prayer for a son to overcome
the troubles from Mlecchas. We are not aware of any martial-problem faced by
Ashoka after the Kalinga battle. Are we to take it that Kalhana was referring to
some other king named Ashoka and partly mixing up the facts with what we know
of Ashoka, the Maurya?
I am not trying to assert that the Ceylonese chronicles are right and Kalhana
is wrong. I am merely stating that if a chronicle be quoted to prove that Ashoka
was in the 15th century BC, there are chronicles which can be quoted to show that
he lived in the 3rd century BC. Not only that, there are reasons to show that the
latter chronicles may be more dependable in this case. Before concluding this
discussion on the date of Ashoka, let me give a couple of points, independent of
164
Shankaras Date
what has been taken up earlier, that show that Ashoka did not live many centuries
before Christ.
(i) In Mudra-rakshasa, Chanakya is described as saying that he sent a spy
named Indusharma to the Nanda camp, disguised as a Jain monk. Mahavira,
according to Jain sources, lived in the 6th century BC. Thus, Chandragupta and so
Ashoka should have lived later.
(ii) From Jain sources, we learn that Chandragupta Maurya entrusted the
kingdom to his son and proceeded to South India with the Jain teacher Bhadrabahu,
performed Sallekana and died. Turning to Jain books, we find that under no
circumstances can Bhadrabahu be placed earlier than the 5th century BC.
(iii) There is evidence in support of the Guptas having ruled in AD period
and not at the time of Alexandars invasion in the 326 BC.
(a)
The Jain text Harivamsa states that the Guptas ruled for 231 years
and were succeeded by a tyrant Kalkiraja (Pathak has shown him to be the same as
Mihirakula). Gunabhadra, the Jain teacher, writes that Kalkiraja was a tyrant and
that he was born 1000 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira. From these utterances,
we learn that the Gupta dynasty must have come to an end about 1000 years after
the Nirvana of Mahavira. In the (Jain) Harivamsa (written by Jinasena, the teacher
of Gunabhadra), it is stated that the Salivahana Sakas originator was born 605 years
and 5 montsh after the Nirvana of Mahavira. This means that the tyrant king and
hence the Guptas could only have ruled in AD. Working backwards, we can see
that the presently accepted period for Ashoka is reasonable. As per Jinasenas own
admission, he completed a work in Saka era 705. Here, we note that the king
spoken of as the successor of the Guptas lived around Saka 400. This means that
the king Jinasena and Gunabhadra were speaking of one who lived only about 300
years before their time. So, the chances of their erring are remote.
(b) The writing of Alberuni, the learned historian brought to India by
Mohmmad Ghazni, favours the position that the Gupta period was only in AD.
(c)
Inscriptional evidence, such as in Mandassor inscription, proves that
the Gupta period was only in AD. Since Guptas ruled in AD, by working backwards
we can see that Alexander could not have invaded India in the time of the Guptas.
This confirms the standard view about Chandragupta and Ashoka.
Thus, there is no justification to assume that the presently accepted period
of 3 century BC for Ashoka is incorrect. This has two implications:
rd
(1) Buddha cannot be placed tens of centuries earlier.
165
Shankaras Date
(2) Kanishka, who lived much later than Ashoka and during whose time the
foundations of the Mahayana school were laid, could not have lived earlier than the
1st century BC. This rules out Padmapada (Shankaras disciple) living in the 6th
century BC, for he explicitly speaks of Mahayana Buddhism. For instance, he has
said:

The implication for Shankaras date is obvious.
166
Shankaras Date
Appendix II
Puranas and Gupta period
Disliking the established historical position that the Gupta dynasty was in
power in the AD period, an indologist has argued as follows that the Guptas ruled
centuries before Christ:
To try to write history by imitating westerners and not taking the details
given in our Puranas into consideration is foolishness. It is right time this wrong
approach be set right.
We can show that the Guptas were associated with the period of Alexanders
invasion. For this, we go by the following list prepared from the details furnished
by the Puranas:
Brahadratha dynasty
(From the time of Jarasandha)
Pradyota dynasty
Sisunaga dynasty
Nanda dynasty
Maurya dynasty
Sunga dynasty
Kanva dynasty
Andhra dynasty
1222 years
138 years
382 years
100 years
137 years
112 years
45 years
406 years
Andhra dynasty was followed by a period of anarchy when India was

invaded by foreigners from the West. Let us allot 300 years to the rule of these
foreigners. Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty came to the throne at the end of
this period. Jarasandha was a contemporary of Krishna and so should have lived in
the 32nd century BC. If we make the necessary subtraction, we find that
Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty should have come to the throne in 4th century
BC. So, he alone should have met Alexander. The astronomical details given in the
Puranas are extremely valuable and should be utilized to advantage. For instance,
in the Kaliyuga Raja Vrittana, it is said, In the time of Yudhishtira, the Great Bear
(Saptarishi) was in Magha for a hundred years. By the time of (Mahapadma) Nanda
it will be in Sravana.
Sravana is the 15th star in the reverse direction from Magha. Per star, the
peiord of the Great Bear is 100 years. So, the interval between the time of
Yudhishtira and Mahapadma Nanda is 1500 years. This is the period specified in all
the Puranas.
167
Shankaras Date
Further, there is a statement found in all the Puranas to the effect, Those
who know (authoritative elders) say the interval between the crowning of
(Mahapadma) Nanda to the commencement of the Andhra Empire is 800 years.
Based on these valuable dates, we should fix our history and not be misled
by the statements of others. In fact, if we look to Puranic chronology, everything
will be in place. If we fix the Gupta dynasty as shown earlier and note that it ruled
for 245 years and was followed by the Pramana dynasty for 223 years, we can
clearly account for the Vikrama era and Salivahana era, which commence in 57 BC
and 78 AD and were started by kings of the Pramana dynasty period.
Note: Another such scholar who fixes the date of the Mahabharata war as
3138 BC assumes that Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty directly succeeded the
Andhra dynasty and tries to show that the Guptas should have been in power
during the time of Alexander. He takes the gap between the Nanda and Andhra
dynasties as 1232 years.
Answer
The first point to be considered here is whether the intent of the Puranas in
speaking of kings and their periods was to furnish exact historical details (in the
future tense) or whether they had some other goal in mind. If the answer conforms
to the second alternative, then even the absence of historical exactitude in such
data would be no blemish.
(a)
The 24 Adhyaya of the 4th Amsa of the Vishnu Purana contains
details of the dynasties of the Kali Yuga. Almost at the start of his commentary on
this portion, Sridhara Svamin, the reputed author of authoritative commentaries on
the Vishnu and the Bhagavata Puranas, has clarified:

(Here, the showing of the insignificance of the periods, life-spans, etc., of
the kings and their reigns is for the sake of inducing dispassion.)
After expatiating on the dynasties and the astronomical details, the revered
commentator has again pointed out that:

(The description of dynasties has dispassion as its object.)
168
Shankaras Date
(b) If it was the intention of our ancient books to furnish us with strictly
accurate dynastic lists, then the description in the various texts would be uniform
and not mutually contradictory, as is the case. Here are some examples:
(i) The Puranas say that Raghu was the father of Aja (the grandfather of
Rama). On the other hand, the Ramayana says that Raghus son was Kalmashapada
and speaks of over ten generations between Raghu and Aja.
(ii) The Vayu Purana says about the Pradyota dynasty:

It thereby declares the period for the 5 Pradyotas to be 138 years.
On the other hand, the Matsya Purana says:

Thus, it specifies that the period for the 5 Pradyotas is 52 years.
(iii) In the objection, it was said that as per the Raja Vrittana, in the time of
Mahapadma Nanda, the Great Bear (Saptarishi) would be in Sravana.
As opposed to this, we have the following declaration of the Vishu Purana:

(When these Maharishis (Saptarishis or the Great Bear) go to Purva Ashada
then commencing with (Mahapadma) Nanda the Kali (age) will attain development.)
What is to be our conclusion? Was the Great Bear in Sravana or Purva
Ashada in Mahapadma Nandas time? All the above-mentioned differences would
not have been there if the Puranans were primarily concerned with such details.
I could go on giving dozens of such examples but shall stop with these. If
the argument be advanced that the descriptions contained in the different texts
pertain to different Kalpas (cycles of creation), then also the position that the
Puranas should not be exclusively relied upon for writing history will hold, for it
will be impossible to select the description pertaining to this Kalpa!
169
Shankaras Date
A heterodox stand would be that there have been a lot of interpoloations in

the Puranas. Else, it is not understandable why Akbar etc., but not the present
government, should be spoken of in the Bhavishya Purana. It is noteworthy that
Puranas give full lists for the previous Yugas but for the Kali Yuga, they stop
before our time. No full future lists are given for recent times and this noteworthy.
I shall now directly tackle the point raised in the objection that according to
the Puranas the Guptas were ruling a few centuries before Christ.
(1) The Matsya and Brahmanda Puranas specify 1050 years as the interval of
time between the birth of Parikshit and the crowning of Mahapadma Nanda.
The Matsya Purana says:

(From the birth of Parikshit to the crowning of Mahapadma, the interval

should be known to be 1050 years.)
The Brahmanda Purana says:

(From the birth of Parikshit to the crowning of Mahananda (Mahapadma

Nanda), the interval should be known to be 1050 years.)
The Vayu Purna says:

(The interval is to be known as 1050 years.)
The Bhagavata differs slightly and says:

170
Shankaras Date
(From the time of your birth (Parikshits birth) to the crowning of Nanda,
the interval is 1115 years.)
The Vishnu Purana also differs slightly and specifies the interval as 1015
years. It says:

(From the birth of Parikshit to the crowning of (Mahapadma) Nanda, the

interval should be known to be 1015 years.)
Thus, we note that the interval should have been 1050 years (with a margin
of error of less than 75 years).
This upsets the view advanced in the objection that according to the Puranas the gap was
1500 years.
In the sequel we will take as final the figure of 1050 years (error will be less
than 75 years). Parikshits mother was pregnant at the time of the Mahabharata and
so his birth must have occurred some months after the war. In the objection, the
date of the Mahabharata was taken to be 3067 BC and so, for convenience (with
error being a maximum of a few months), we will take this as the year of birth of
Pariskshit. From this, we have Mahapadmas crowning in 3067 1050 = 2017 BC.
Beyond this, let us follow, for the time being, the details given in the objection and formulate
the following table. (It may be noted that I am not saying that the figures given as
periods are correct).
EVENT
Mahapadmas crowning
Nanda dynasty
Maurya dynasty
Sunga dynasty
Kanva dynasty
Andhara dynasty
Foreigners dynasty
PERIOD
100 years
137 years
112 years
45 years
406 years
300 years
DATE
2017 BC
1917 BC (end)
1780 BC (end)
1668 BC (end)
1623 BC (end)
1217 BC (end)
917 BC (end)
The Gupta dynasty was founded by Chandragupta at the end of the rule of
the foreigners. Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty must thus have come to the
throne in 917 BC and his son Samudra Gupta, a short time later. How could they
171
Shankaras Date
have been associated with Alexanders invasion which took place in 326 BC? This
apart, the Gupta dynasty ended in 917-245=672 BC.
Thus, not only Samudragupta but also the entire Gupta dynasty gets eliminated from the
picture if we consider the evidence of the Puranas as also the data supplied in the
objection.
As far as the second view is concerned (vide the Note given earlier), the
situation is no better. There, the Mahabharata war is placed at 3138 BC and the
300 years of the foreigners is not considered. On the other hand, the interval
between the Nanda dynasty and end of Andhra dynasty is given as 1232 years. So,
the Gupta dynasty must have commenced in 856 BC if we go by that computation,
taking into consideration a gap of 1050 years between Parikshit and Mahapadma
Nanda of 1050 years, as specified in the Vayu, Brahmanda and Matsya Puranas.
It may be tempting to suggest that foreigners ruled not for 300 years but for
850 years and try to bring the Gupta period to the 4th century BC. This will
unmistakably go against the Puranic declarations which I have culled from the
various Puranas to cater to such an argument. In as much as this unjustifiable and
unsupported fanciful imagination has not yet been indulged in, my presentation of
those details is unnecessary here.
Having noted that neither Chandragupta nor Samudragupta could have lived
in 326 BC, let us proceed to see futher what results from accepting the views
presented in the objection. It was shown earlier that the Gupta dynasty should
have come to power in 917 BC. This was followed by the Pramana dynasty of
Ujjain which ruled, according to what is started in the objection, for 223 years.
Thus, it must have ended in 917-245-223=449 BC. Yet, we are asked to believe that
during the period of the Pramana dynasty, the Salivahana era was started in 78 AD.
How indeed could era commencing in 78 AD have been started during the reign of
a dynasty which, apparently, ended in 449 BC?
I hope these points are sufficient to show that strange conclusions will result
if we are to believe in the approach suggested in the objection. Of course, he who
swears by the Puranic lists cannot reject the interval between Parikshit and Mahapadma
Nanda as supplied by the Vayu, Brahmanda, Matsya, Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas
just because that demolishes the argument presented in the objection. In conclusion, it
may be noted that the arguments that were intended to show that in the light of
Puranic evidence the Guptas and not the Mauryas were in power in the 4th century
BC are untenable.
172
Shankaras Date
Appendix III
Date of Buddha
The 2500th anniversary of the Nirvana of Buddha was celebrated all over the
world in May 1956. Thus, it is widely accepted that Buddha flourished in the 6 th
century BC. However, though largely ignored by historians, some protagonists of
the 509 BC theory for Shankara have sought to push back the period of Buddha by
several centuries, to the 19th century BC. The purpose behind such a move is stated
by Nataraja Aiyer and Lakshminarasimha Sastri as, But is there no way of
accounting for a gap of three or four or more centuries between Buddha and
Shankara without altering Shankaras date i.e., 509-477 BC? There is and that is a
bold step to push back the date of Buddha by centuries. How historically justified
the motive is, I leave it to the reader to judge.
As might have been guessed by the reader, the view There is no other
source except the Puranas for the reconstruction of the ancient history of India is
advanced. This has already been dealt with in Appendix II. A few points to directly
contradict the 19th century BC period for Buddha can be considered now.
(1) The Buddhist cannonical texts such as the Majjhima Nikaya and Digha
Nikaya indicate that Mahavira and Buddha were contemporaries and that Mahavira
passed away towards the close of Buddhas life, this information being conveyed to
Buddha by a follower named Cunda. These details are contained in the Samagama
Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya and in the Pasadika Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. While
the Jain cannonical texts do not speak of Buddha as a contemporary of Mahavira,
they have mentioned kings who were ruling at the time of Mahavira. The Buddhist
texts have spoken of kings who ruled in Buddhas time. As kings such as Ajatasatru
find a place in both the Jain and Buddhist texts, we can conclude that Buddha and
Mahavira were contemporaries. As regards the period of Mahavira, from the
writings of the Jains, we can see that he must have lived in the 6th century BC. One
piece of evidence has been adduced in the appendix on Date of Ashoka. Another
piece of evidence is furnished by Hemachandra who says that Kumarapala was
crowned 1669 years after the Nirvana of Mahavira. This king was crowned in the
12th century AD. We know this because he was a younger contemporary of
Hemachandra who was born in 1134 Vikram Samvat or 1078 AD. Since Mahavira
and Buddha were contemporaries, Buddha must have also lived in the 6 th century
BC.
(2) Dr. Harilal Jain and Dr. A. N. Upadhyaya have, in their book on
Mahavira published by the Bharatiya Jnanpith, drawn attention to an interesting
practice that was prevalent in China. They have written, In China in the town of
Kaintan attempt was made to record the memory of Buddhas Nirvana by a series
of points or ciphers. Every year one cipher was added. We further learn that this
173
Shankaras Date
practice was stopped in the 5th century AD and at that time the total number of
ciphers was 975. This counters the assignment of Buddha to the 19th century BC.
(3) From the Ceylonese chronicles, we learn that Buddha must have been
alive in the 6th century BC.
(4) From the Burmese chronicle Malla Linkara, it is learnt that in the time of
Buddhas maternal grandfather (who is referred there as Eetzana), a new era called
the Eetzana era was started. A few months after the Nirvana of Buddha, a council
was held by king Adzatathat (Ajatasatru) wherein it was decided to abolish the
Eetzana era and start the Religious era. This change was effected in the 148th year
of the Eetzana era. In the year 625 of the Religious era, king Thamugdara
(Samuddhara) reformed the calendar, dropped some years and began reformed
computation with the year two. This new start corresponds to 79 AD. Thus, if we
work backwards, we find that Buddha should have lived in the 6th century BC. For
further details, Bigandets translation of the Burmese work as also M. Raja Raos
article in the B. C. Law Volume may be referred.
(5) The Ceylonese tradition as well as the Chinese traveler Hieun Tsang,
specify a gap of less than 300 years between Buddhas Nirvana and Ashoka. Since
Ashoka ruled in the 3rd century BC (as discussed in Appendix 1), Buddha could not
have lived in the 19th century BC.
It may have been noted that I have not tried to present data in favour of just
544 BC as the year of Nirvana. For the present purpose, it will not matter
significantly even if Buddhas passing away was 100 years earlier or later. All that
has been aimed at is to show that Buddha cannot be placed around 19th century
BC. In the context of the date of Shankara, a sixth century BC period for Buddha
deals a deathblow to the sixth century BC date for Shankara, for it is undisputed,
and indeed undisputable, that centuries must have intervened between Buddhas
Nirvana and Shankaras advent.
174

Shankara's Date (Revised (Unpublished) 1983)

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Shankara's Date (Revised (Unpublished) 1983)

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

SHANKARAS DATE

Revised (unpublished): 1983

To fix the period before which Gaudapada (deemed to be the Paramaguru

Gaudapada and the Sankhya-karikas

The following argument is used by some to assign Gaudapada a period prior

Gaudapada and Bhavaviveka

It has been pointed out by Vidhushekhara Bhattacharya in his book Agama

The reconstruction of the corresponding verse of Bhavaviveka is given as:

Bhavavivekas verse is:

Gaudapada and Shankara

Kumarila and Vindhyavasin

(1) Kumarila Bhatta has mentioned Vindhyavasin in his Shloka-vartika

Kumarila and Samantabhadra

(The existence of an omniscient one is established from the fact that to

It will be obvious that Samantabhadra is contradicting this position of

(If an omniscient one is regarded as aware of everything by means of a

(Since one who is not omniscient cannot know (another to be) an

Kumarila and Dinnaga

For justification of what Umveka says it will be necessary to quote more

(b) In his Nyaya-bhashya, Vatsyayana has referred the Artha-sastra of Kautilya.

Kumarila and Bhartrhari

(1) Kumarila has quoted the Vakyapadiya of Bhartrhari.

That the Tantra-vartika is a work of Kumarila is beyond dispute. This,

This leaves us in no doubt Kumarila citing the Vakyapadiya. Many more

(1) In his Vakyapadiya, Bhartrhari has referred to the grammarian Chandra

Kumarila and Kalidasa

In his Tantra-vartika, in the section pertaining to the Mimamsasutra

In Kalidasas play Abhijnana Sakuntala, we have the scene of King Dushyanta

is found in an identical form in Kalidasas play

(3) The commentator, while commenting on this passage of the Tantra-vartika,

(Vide Tantra-vartika Tika)

(4) It must be borne in mind that the quoted passage is in the

(Without doubt, she can be married by a Kshatriya since my pure heart

(The Atmatushti-pramana is thus Quotation. Here, Dushyanta, by means

Alankara Surabhi on Kuvalayananda elaborates on the quotation and the

(4) In his Meghaduta, Kalidasa seems to indirectly refer to Dinnaga, the

Kumarila and Dharmakirti

According to Tibetan sources, Kumarila and Dharmakirti were contemporaries.

Dharmakirti has attacked this in a series of verses commencing with:

The first verse of Dharmakirti is obviously a paraphrase of Kumarilas verse.

Dharmakirti contradicts this by saying:

Kumarila and Santarakshita

Santarakshita attacks Kumarila:

In the course of his commentary on this, writes Kamalasila:

(3) In his commentary on the Vedanyaya of Dharmakirti, Santarakshita has

Not less than a hundred examples can be given to indicate Santarakshitas

Kumarila and Akalanka

(2) Akalanka flourished in the eighth century AD.

(When non-perception and absence of being knowable are there to deny

in the chapter Kumarila and Samantabhadra, Akalanka has introduced a change in

(Tattva-sangraha, verse 3167 - Bauddha Bharati series)

The texts involved may be referred for further clarifications.

(But Umveka has said)

(3) Akalanka has attacked Dharmakirti, Karnakagomin, Prajnakara Gupta,

Kumarila and Prabhakara

The relationship between Kumarila and Prabhakara, as far as their relative

(Effort should be made by the disciples of Guru Prabhakara)

(2a) In the Sarvadarshana-kaumudi, it is said:

This occurs in the Arthapatti Pariccheda of the Shloka-vartika. I have taken

Prabhakara and Bhartrhari:

2.10 Final Remarks on the Date of Kumarila

2.11 Kumarila and Shankara