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Revised (unpublished): 1983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

2

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

Shankaras Date

3

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

1

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 117-139). 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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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-upanishad- karikas 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,

Shankaras Date

6

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

7

(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 3rd 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.

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

8

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 6th 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 Sankhya- karikas.

(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 Mathara- vritti, 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

Shankaras Date

9

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

10

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 Sanskrit-reconstruction 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:

Shankaras Date

11

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:

Shankaras Date

12

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:

()

Shankaras Date

13

(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

Shankaras Date

14

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).

Shankaras Date

15

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 5th

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.

Shankaras Date

16

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

Summary of argument: (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 Gandhahasti-

bhashya 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

Shankaras Date

17

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.)

Shankaras Date

18

(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 Apta-Mimamsa 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.

Shankaras Date

19

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 Tatvarthadigama-sutra. 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

Summary of argument: (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 Shloka- vartika of Kumarila.

(i) Kumarila says:

Shankaras Date

20

(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

Shankaras Date

21

(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 Nyaya-sutras 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.

Shankaras Date

22

(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

Shankaras Date

23

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:

Shankaras Date

24

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 Paramana-samucchaya not earlier than the first part of the 6th century.

(4) Some of Dinnagas works were taken to China around the middle of the

6th century. This does not mean that Dinnaga lived much earlier, for Paramartha took with him even the latest, available works.

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

Summary of argument:

Shankaras Date

25

(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 Mimamsa-sutra-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:

Shankaras Date

26

(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:

Shankaras Date

27

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:

Shankaras Date

28

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 I-Tsing. 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

Shankaras Date

29

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 is found in an identical form in Kalidasas play Abhijnana Sakuntala.

(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.

Shankaras Date

30

(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

Shankaras Date

31

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.

Shankaras Date

32

(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

Shankaras Date

33

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 Shloka-vartika of Kumarila with the commentaries thereon, as also Dharmakirtis Pramana-vartika, 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:

Shankaras Date

34

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:

Shankaras Date

35

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:

Shankaras Date

36

: 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

Shankaras Date

37

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.

Shankaras Date

38

(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

8th century. 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).)

Shankaras Date

39

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

Summary of argument: (1) Akalanka has attacked Kumarila.

Shankaras Date

40

(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

Shankaras Date

41

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 Apta-

mmamsa 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:

Shankaras Date

42

(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)

Shankaras Date

43

The texts involved may be referred for further clarifications. Karnakagomin has explicitly named Umveka in his commentary on Pramana-

vartika 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 pillar-inscription. Dantidurga made a gift dated Saka era 675 or 753 AD.

Shankaras Date

44

(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,

Shankaras Date

45

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 sh