The date of Sankara

[Elliot M. Stern]

on 16/07/2000 7:00 PM, Automatic digest processor at
LISTSERV at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK wrote:

> From: "N. Ganesan" <naga_ganesan at HOTMAIL.COM>
> Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:47:35 GMT
> Subject: Re: The date of Sankara
>
> K. Raja's ALB paper concludes that Adi Sankara (800 CE) date
> mainly depends on taking vAcaspatimizra to have lived around
> 841 CE.
>
> K. Kunjunni Raja, On the date of "SaMkarAcArya and allied problems,
> ALB, 1963, v. 24

The volume date is 1960, not 1963.

> "Conclusion:
> A detailed examination of all the evidence leads us to the
> following conclusion. "SaMkara is later than BhartRhari,
> DiGnAga, GauDapAda, DharmakIrti and KumArila and cannot
> be earlier than A.D. 650. Since VAcaspati wrote one of
> his works in A.D. 841, and since he is later than
> "SaMkara by one or two generations, "SaMkara has to be
> placed before A.D. 800. The absence of any reference to
> the philosophical system of "SaMkara in the works of
> "SAntarakSita and KamalazIla, even when they discuss an
> AdvaitavAda under the heading of UpaniSadvAda, and also
> in the work of HaribhadrasUri shows that "SaMkara's
> theories had not spread by the second half of the eigth
> century. Hence the works of "SaMkara must have been
> composed towards the close of the eigth century A.D."

Please recall the reply (Re: on zankara's date - 2) I sent to this list on 7
January 2000 to your earlier message, in which I argued that zaGkaraH could
scarcely have lived much after 760CE, and suggested that he probably lived
somewhat earlier. That argument depended on the relative chronology we may
construct, when we see that kamalazIlaH quotes umbekaH, commentator on one
of maNDana's works, and if we accept that maNDanaH came later, or was
contemporary to, zaGkaraH. Note that on page 142 in the article you cite,
Prof. Kunjunni Raja has accepted that "MaNDanamizra was another contemporary
of ZaMkara", though he does not seem yet to have accepted the chronological
priority of umbekaH to kamalazIlaH (page 137: "perhaps UMveka is the same as
Ubeyaka quoted by KamalazIla in his *PaJjikA* commentary"). However, he
later unequivocally accepts the identity of umbekaH and uveyakaH on pages
viii-x of his preface (dated 17 March 1971) to the second edition of
*zlokavArtikavyAkhyA tAtparyaTIkA of uMveka bhaTTa*.

You might also look at K. Kunjunni Raja's article "On the dates of ZaMkara
and MaNDana" (ALB 55 (1991):104-116). In this later article, he claims (page
114): "MaNDana's *Brahmasiddhi* does not refer to the views of ZaMkara, and
Zamkara, too, does not refer to MaNDana or his views", but he neglects to
explain his rejection of S. Kuppuswami Sastri's carefully justified position
(in the introduction to his edition of brahmasiddhiH) that maNDanaH refers
in brahmasiddhiH to zaMkara's brahmasUtrabhASyam, a position that he had
apparently accepted in the 1960 article (page 142). Please note, by the way,
that he continues to accept in 1991 that umbekaH is referred to by
kamalaZIlaH (pages 112-113).

Kunjunni Raja's concludes the 1991 article (pages 115-116) thus:
"ZAntirakSita and KamalaZIla seem to refer to MaNDana; they do not speak
about ZaMkara or his theories. HaribhadrasUri who flourished between 700 and
770 A.D. refoers to BhartRhari, DignAga and DharmakIrti but does not refer
to ZaMkara at all; this indicates that ZaMkara may be laterthan 750 A.D. In
Bhavya's presentation of the VedAntadarzana in the *MAdhyamakahhRdayakArikA*
and its auto-commentary *TarkajvAlA* there is no reference to ZaMkara or his
theories (MaNDana is also not mentioned), which indicates that ZaMkara is
later than Bhavya (700-750 A.D.); or at least that ZaMkara had not become a
famous VedAntin when Bhavya wrote his work; HaribhadrasUri, too, does not
refer to ZaMkara or MaNDana.

"There is nothing which stands in the way of the popular tradition making
ZaMkara and MaNDana contemporaries. They could have lived in the eighth
century A.D."

As in the conlusion of the 1960 article, he invokes negative evidences in
the conclusion of the 1991, but he is careful in 1991 to say 'may' rather
than 'must', and he concedes that absence of reference to zaGkara's work,
even in a section of a work dealing with vedAntadarzanam, does not equate
with that work predating zaGkara's.

In summary, I do not see any strong argument in any of the above referenced
writings by K. Kunjunni Raja that would lead me to modify or abandon the
relative chronology I set forth in my 7 January posting to this list.


Elliot M. Stern
552 South 48th Street
Philadelphia, PA 19143-2029
United States of America
Telephone: 215-747-6204
email: emstern at bellatlantic.net