On zankara's date - 1

[Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan]

Many thanks to the members for very useful information on the use of the
terms, mImAMsA, vedAnta, etc.

My interest in these terms comes from an attempt to explore the issue of the
date of zankara using an approach different from the earlier ones. I am
trying to consider the subjects of study in the Sanskrit colleges in the
Tamilnadu/Kerala region to see if we can find out when vedAnta began to be
included as a subject of study. Not having access to some important works, I
am relying on Vidyasankar Sundaresan's advaita web site for prior information
on this topic. I am willing to be corrected on any resulting errors.

In his article, "Cattanam Madham - Its Identification", K. G. Krishnan, the
epigraphist, discusses the establishment called caTTANam maDham mentioned  in
uddyotAna-sUri's Prakrit campu, kuvalayamAlA. Following U. P. Shah's earlier
work (ABORI, 1968, pp.247ff), Krishnan argues convincingly that sUri is
talking about the famous college at kAntaLUrccAlai in South Kerala. According
to kuvalayamAlA, the philosophical subjects of study at the college were
buddhadarzana, mImAMsA, naiyAyika-darzana, anekAntavAda or lOkAyataka. I
think it is interesting that vedAnta was not included.

Krishnan mentions Upadhye as giving March 21, 779 AD  as the date of
completion of sUri's work. If  zankara is dated ca. 700 AD, in an institution
of national importance right in zankara's own backyard, will they neglect
vedAnta as a subject of study in 779 AD? Moreover, sUri mentions
buddhadarzana but not vedAnta. Is there a way to rule out the fact that it
could be simply an oversight?

There is a set of copper plates of karunantaTakkan2 issued in 866 AD
describing the establishment of a Sanskrit college associated with a viSNu
temple at pArttivacEkarapuram in the kan2n2iyAkumari district of Tamilnadu.
According to this, the college was modeled after the older one at
kAntaLUrccAlai. The students were admitted after an entrance test in
vyAkaraNa, mImAMsA, and paurOhitya. vedAnta was not included in this list.
Considering the relative proximity of this school to zankara's home, why was
vedAnta not included? Was the dominance of mImAMsA studies so complete in
Tamilnadu/Kerala that even in 866, vedAnta was not considered a subject of
study in its own right? Or did zankara achieve fame later than 866 AD?

Regards
S. Palaniappan