Date of Udayana

[birgit kellner]

nanda chandran wrote:

> I'm sorry. I'm not particularly strong with the rules which govern
> transliteration. I just spelt the name the way I thought it would sound.

You *do* realize, I hope, that in connection with dating Indian philosophers,
some of which may have quite similar or even identical names, spelling according
to one's own sentiments is the best way to end up in utter confusion ...

> And also according to Indological opinion Buddhism was already on the wane
> by the time of Shankara. The last great Buddhist philosophers -
> SAntarakshita and Kamalasila were either earlier or at best, comtemporaries
> of Shankara.

These two were by no means the last great Buddhist philosophers around. For
Udayana, in fact, his elder contemporary JJAnazrImitra, at least some of whose
works were composed before Udayanas', was much more important. It is in this
context worth noting that JJAnazrImitra authored a lengthy treatise called
"IzvaravAdaH", which covers about 80 pages in Anantalal Thakur's edition of J's
works (Patna 1987, 2nd ed.). I don't know whether Udayana takes up any specific
arguments from JJAnazrI in this context, but he is certainly known to have
reacted against J's arguments on other subjects.
At any rate, there is no reason why Udayana in his historical environment should
not have felt compelled to write a treatise that aims to establish the existence
of Izvara. Whether, in doing so, he proposed any substantially new arguments, or
whether in fact his (presumably largely Buddhist) opponents had managed to come
up with substantially new arguments against the notion of an Izvara in the first
place, is of course a different subject-matter. But the assessment of novelty of
arguments has got nothing to do with dating.

For more on Udayana's arguments concerning the notion of a god, you might want
to take a look at George Chemparathy's "An Indian Rational Theology,
Introduction to Udayana's NyAyakusumaJjali" (Vienna 1972) - unless, of course,
your questions are already based on that work.

> It is just that the philosophical flavor of KusumAnjali seems
> to be inconsistent with the philosphical environs of its supposed dating.

Only if one takes an incomplete and narrow view on what constitute its
"philosophical environs".

> So the main question seems to be whether the author of KusumAnjali is the
> same as the author of Atmatattvaviveka. So are there internal references in
> the works themselves, which assert this?

Before answering a question like this, one would wish that you point to more
solid grounds to actually *doubt* that this is the case, and that you indicate
*concrete* evidence that lead you to doubt a common authorship of these works,
other than just a faint idea or suspicion. As far as I can see, only someone who
is quite unfamiliar with Udayana, his works and the study thereof would come up
with such a question.

Regards,

Birgit Kellner
Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies
Vienna University