Book: Five Years Of Theosophy

V >> Various >> Five Years Of Theosophy




We have enumerated these defects in the writings of European
Orientalists for the purpose of showing to our readers that it is not
always safe to rely upon the conclusions arrived at by these writers
regarding the dates of ancient Indian history.

In examining the various quotations and traditions selected by European
Orientalists for the purpose of fixing Sankaracharya's date, special
care must be taken to see whether the person referred to was the very
first Sankaracharya who established the Adwaitee doctrine, or one of his
followers who became the Adhipathis (heads) of the various Mathams
(temples) established by him and his successors. Many of the Adwaitee
Mathadhipatis who succeeded him (especially of the Sringeri Matham) were
men of considerable renown and were well known throughout India during
their time. They are often referred to under the general name of
Sankaracharya. Consequently, any reference made to any one of these
Mathadhipatis is apt to be mistaken for a reference to the first
Sankaracharya himself.

Mr. Barth, whose opinion regarding Sankara's date is quoted by "An
English F.T.S." against the date assigned to that teacher in Mr.
Sinnett's book on Esoteric Buddhism, does not appear to have carefully
examined the subject himself. He assigns no reasons for the date given,
and does not even allude to the existence of other authorities and
traditions which conflict with the date adopted by him. The date which
he assigns to Sankara appears in an unimportant foot-note on page 89 of
his book on "The Religions of India," which reads thus: "Sankaracharya
is generally placed in the eighth century; perhaps we must accept the
ninth rather. The best accredited tradition represents him as born on
the 10th of the month 'Madhava' in 788 A.D. Other traditions, it is
true, place him in the second and fifth centuries. The author of the
Dabistan, on the other hand, brings him as far down as the commencement
of the fourteenth." Mr. Barth is clearly wrong in saying that Sankara
is generally placed in the eight century. There are as many traditions
for placing him in some century before the Christian era as for placing
him in some century after the said era, and it will also be seen from
what follows that in fact evidence preponderates in favour of the former
statement. It cannot be contended that the generality of Orientalists
have any definite opinions of their own on the subject under
consideration. Max Muller does not appear to have ever directed his
attention to this subject. Monier Williams merely copies the date given
by Mr. Wilson, and Mr. Weber seems to rely upon the same authority
without troubling himself with any further inquiry about the matter.
Mr. Wilson is probably the only Orientalist who investigated the subject
with some care and attention; and he frankly confesses that the exact
period at which "he (Sankara) flourished can by no means be determined"
(p. 201 of vol. I. of his "Essays on the Religion of the Hindoos").
Under such circumstances the foot-note above quoted is certainly very
misleading. Mr. Barth does not inform his readers where he obtained the
tradition referred to, and what reasons he has for supposing that it
refers to the first Sankaracharya, and that it is "the best accredited
tradition." When the matter is still open to discussion, Mr. Barth
should not have adopted any particular date if he is not prepared to
support it and establish it by proper arguments. The other traditions
alluded to are not intended, of course, to strengthen the authority of
the tradition relied upon. But the wording of the foot-note in question
seems to show that all the authorities and traditions relating to the
subject are comprised therein, when in fact the most important of them
are left out of consideration, as will be shown hereafter. No arguments
are to be found in support of the date assigned to Sankara in the other
portions of Mr. Barth's book, but there are a few isolated passages
which may be taken either as inferences from the statement in question
or arguments in its support, which it will be necessary to examine in
this connection.

Mr. Barth has discovered some connection between the appearance of
Sankara in India and the commencement of the persecution of the
Buddhists, which he seems to place in the seventh and eighth centuries.
In page 89 of his book he speaks of "the great reaction on the offensive
against Buddhism which was begun in the Deccan in the seventh and eighth
centuries by the schools of Kumarila and Sankara;" and in page 135 he
states that the "disciples of Kumarila and Sankara, organized into
military bands, constituted themselves the rabid defenders of
orthodoxy." The force of these statements is, however, considerably
weakened by the author's observations on pages 89 and 134, regarding the
absence of any traces of Buddhist persecution by Sankara in the
authentic documents hitherto examined, and the absurdity of legends
which represent him as exterminating Buddhists from the Himalaya to Cape
Comorin.

The association of Sankara with Kumarila in the passages above cited is
highly ridiculous. It is well known to almost every Hindu that the
followers of Purva Mimamsa (Kumarila commented on the Sutras) were the
greatest and the bitterest opponents of Sankara and his doctrine, and
Mr. Barth seems to be altogether ignorant of the nature of Kumarila's
views and Purva Mimamsa, and the scope and aim of Sankara's Vedantic
philosophy. It is impossible to say what evidence the author has for
asserting that the great reaction against the Buddhists commenced in the
seventh and eighth centuries, and that Sankara was instrumental in
originating it. There are some passages in his book which tend to show
that this date cannot be considered as quite correct. In page 135 he
says that Buddhist persecution began even in the time of Asoka.

Such being the case, it is indeed very surprising that the orthodox
Hindus should have kept quiet for nearly ten centuries without
retaliating on their enemies. The political ascendency gained by the
Buddhists during the reign of Asoka did not last very long; and the
Hindus had the support of very powerful kings before and after the
commencement of the Christian era. Moreover, the author says, in p. 132
of his book, that Buddhism was in a state of decay in the seventh
century. It is hardly to be expected that the reaction against the
Buddhists would commence when their religion was already in a state of
decay. No great religious teacher or reformer would waste his time and
energy in demolishing a religion already in ruins. But what evidence is
there to show that Sankara was ever engaged in this task? If the main
object of his preaching was to evoke a reaction against Buddhism, he
would no doubt have left us some writings specially intended to
criticize its doctrines and expose its defects. On the other hand, he
does not even allude to Buddhism in his independent works.

Though he was a voluminous writer, with the exception of a few remarks
on the theory advocated by some Buddhists regarding the nature of
perception, contained in his Commentary on the Brahma-Sutras, there is
not a single passage in the whole range of his writings regarding the
Buddhists or their doctrines; and the insertion of even these few
remarks in his Commentary was rendered necessary by the allusions
contained in the Sutras which he was interpreting. As, in our humble
opinion, these Brahma-Sutras were composed by Vyasa himself (and not by
an imaginary Vyasa of the fifth century after Christ, evolved by Mr.
Weber's fancy), the allusions therein contained relate to the Buddhism
which existed to the date of Gautama Buddha. From these few remarks it
will be clear to our readers that Sankaracharya had nothing to do with
Buddhist persecution. We may here quote a few passages from Mr.
Wilson's Preface to the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary in
support of our remarks. He writes as follows regarding Sankara's
connection with the persecution of the Buddhists:--"Although the popular
belief attributes the origin of the Bauddha persecution to
Sankaracharya, yet in this case we have some reason to distrust its
accuracy. Opposed to it we have the mild character of the reformer, who
is described as uniformly gentle and tolerant; and, speaking from my
own limited reading in Vedanta works, and the more satisfactory
testimony of Ram Mohun Roy, which he permits me to adduce, it does not
appear that any traces of his being instrumental to any persecution are
to be found in his own writings, all which are extant, and the object of
which is by no means the correction of the Bauddha or any other schism,
but the refutation of all other doctrines besides his own, and the
reformation or re-establishment of the fourth religious order." Further
on he observes that "it is a popular error to ascribe to him the work of
persecution; he does not appear at all occupied in that odious task,
nor is he engaged in particular controversy with any of the Bauddhas."

From the foregoing observations it will be seen that Sankara's date
cannot be determined by the time of the commencement of the Buddhist
persecution, even if it were possible to ascertain the said period.

Mr. Barth seems to have discovered some connection between the
philosophical systems of Sankara, Ramanuja and Anandathirtha, and the
Arabian merchants who came to India in the first centuries of the
Hejira, and he is no doubt fully entitled to any credit that may be
given him for the originality of his discovery. This mysterious and
occult connection between Adwaita philosophy and Arabian commerce is
pointed out in p. 212 of his book, and it may have some bearing on the
present question, if it is anything more than a figment of his fancy.
The only reason given by him in support of his theory is, however, in my
humble opinion, worthless. The Hindus had a Prominent example of a
grand religious movement under the guidance of a single teacher in the
life of Buddha, and it was not necessary for them to imitate the
adventures of the Arabian prophet. There is but one other passage in
Mr. Barth's book which has some reference to Sankara's date. In page
207 he writes as follows:--"The Siva, for instance, who is invoked at
the commencement of the drama of Sakuntala, who is at once God, priest
and offering, and whose body is the universe, is a Vedantic idea. This
testimony appears to be forgotten when it is maintained, as is sometimes
done, that the whole sectarian Vedantism commences with Sankara." But
this testimony appears to be equally forgotten when it is maintained, as
is sometimes done by Orientalists like Mr. Barth, that Sankara lived in
some century after the author of Sakuntala.

From the foregoing remarks it will be apparent that Mr. Barth's opinion
regarding Sankara's date is very unsatisfactory. As Mr. Wilson seems to
have examined the subject with some care and attention, we must now
advert to his opinion and see how far it is based on proper evidence.
In attempting to fix Amara Sinha's date (which attempt ultimately ended
in a miserable failure), he had to ascertain the period when Sankara
lived. Consequently his remarks concerning the said period appear in
his preface to the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary. We shall
now reproduce here such passages from this preface as are connected with
the subject under consideration and comment upon them. Mr. Wilson
writes as follows:--

"The birth of Sankara presents the same discordance as every other
remarkable incident amongst the Hindus. The Kadali (it ought to be
Koodali) Brahmins, who form an establishment following and teaching his
system, assert his appearance about 2,000 years since; some accounts
place him about the beginning of the Christian era, others in the third
or fourth century after; a manuscript history of the kings of Konga, in
Colonel Mackenzie's Collection, makes him contemporary with Tiru Vikrama
Deva Chakravarti, sovereign of Skandapura in the Dekkan, AD. 178; at
Sringeri, on the edge of the Western Ghauts, and now in the Mysore
Territory, at which place he is said to have founded a College that
still exists, and assumes the supreme control of the Smarta Brahmins of
the Peninsula, an antiquity of 1,600 years is attributed to him, and
common tradition makes him about 1,200 years old. The Bhoja Prabandha
enumerates Sankara among its worthies, and as contemporary with that
prince; his antiquity will then be between eight and nine centuries.
The followers of Madhwacharya in Tuluva seem to have attempted to
reconcile these contradictory accounts by supposing him to have been
born three times; first at Sivuli in Tuluva about 1,500 years ago,
again in Malabar some centuries later, and finally at Padukachaytra in
Tuluva, no more than 600 years since; the latter assertion being
intended evidently to do honour to their own founder, whose date that
was, by enabling him to triumph over Sankara in a supposititious
controversy. The Vaishnava Brahmins of Madura say that Sankara appeared
in the ninth century of Salivahana, or tenth of our era. Dr. Taylor
thinks that, if we allow him about 900 years, we shall not be far from
the truth, and Mr. Colebroke is inclined to give him an antiquity of
about 1,000 years. This last is the age which my friend Ram Mohun Roy,
a diligent student of Sankara's works, and philosophical teacher of his
doctrines, is disposed to concur in, and he infers that 'from a
calculation of the spiritual generations of the followers of Sankara
Swami from his time up to this date, he seems to have lived between the
seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era,' a distance of time
agreeing with the statements made to Dr. Buchanan in his journey through
Sankara's native country, Malabar, and in union with the assertion of
the Kerala Utpatti, a work giving art historical and statistical account
of the same province, and which, according to Mr. Duncan's citation of
it, mentions the regulations of the castes of Malabar by this
philosopher to have been effected about 1,000 years before 1798. At the
same time, it must be observed, that a manuscript translation of the
same work in Colonel Mackenzie's possession, states Sankaracharya to
have been born about the middle of the fifth century, or between
thirteen or fourteen hundred years ago, differing in this respect from
Mr. Duncan's statement--a difference of the less importance, as the
manuscript in question, either from defects in the original or
translation, presents many palpable errors, and cannot consequently be
depended upon. The weight of authority therefore is altogether in
favour of an antiquity of about ten centuries, and I am disposed to
adopt this estimate of Sankara's date, and to place him in the end of
the eighth and beginning of the ninth century of the Christian era."

We will add a few more authorities to Mr. Wilson's list before
proceeding to comment on the foregoing passage.

In a work called "The Biographical Sketches of Eminent Hindu Authors,"
published at Bombay in 1860 by Janardan Ramchenderjee, it is stated that
Sankara lived 2,500 years ago, and that, in the opinion of some people,
2,200 years ago. The records of the Combaconum Matham give a list of
nearly 66 Mathadhipatis from Sankara down to the present time, and show
that he lived more than 2,000 years ago.

The Kudali Matham referred to by Mr. Wilson, which is a branch of the
Sringeri Matham, gives the same date as the latter Matham, their
traditions being identical. Their calculation can safely be relied upon
as far as it is supported by the dates given on the places of Samadhi
(something like a tomb) of the successive Gurus of the Sringeri Matham;
and it leads us to the commencement of the Christian era.

No definite information is given by Mr. Wilson regarding the nature,
origin, or reliability of the accounts which place Sankara in the third
or fourth century of the Christian era or at its commencement; nor does
it clearly appear that the history of the kings of Konga referred to
unmistakably alludes to the very first Sancharacharya. These traditions
are evidently opposed to the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Wilson, and it
does not appear on what grounds their testimony is discredited by him.
Mr. Wilson is clearly wrong in stating that an antiquity of 1,600 years
is attributed to Sankara by the Sringeri Matham. We have already
referred to the account of the Sringeri Matham, and it is precisely
similar to the account given by the Kudali Brahmins. We have ascertained
that it is so from the agent of the Sringeri Matham at Madras, who has
recently published the list of teachers preserved at the said Matham
with the dates assigned to them. And further, we are unable to see which
"common tradition" makes Sankara "about 1,200 years old." As far as our
knowledge goes there is no such common tradition in India. The majority
of people in Southern India have, up to this time, been relying on the
Sringeri account, and in Northern India there seems to be no common
tradition. We have but a mass of contradictory accounts.

It is indeed surprising that an Orientalist of Mr. Wilson's pretensions
should confound the poet named Sankara and mentioned in Bhoja Prabandha
with the great Adwaitee teacher. No Hindu would ever commit such a
ridiculous mistake. We are astonished to find some of these European
Orientalists quoting now and then some of the statements contained in
such books as Bhoja Prabandha, Katha Sarit Sagara, Raja-tarangini and
Panchatantra, as if they were historical works. In some other part of
his preface Mr. Wilson himself says that this Bhoja Prabandha is
altogether untrustworthy, as some of the statements contained therein
did not harmonize with his theory about Amarasimha's date; but now he
misquotes its statements for the purpose of supporting his conclusion
regarding Sankara's date. Surely, consistency is not one of the
prominent characteristics of the writings of the majority of European
Orientalists. The person mentioned in Bhoja Prabandha is always spoken
of under the name of Sankara Kavi (poet), and he is nowhere called
Sankaracharya (teacher), and the Adwaitee teacher is never mentioned in
any Hindu work under the appellation of Sankara Kavi.

It is unnecessary for us to say anything about the Madhwa traditions or
the opinion of the Vaishnava Brahmins of Madurah regarding Sankara's
date. It is, in our humble opinion, hopeless to expect anything but
falsehood regarding Sankara's history and his philosophy from the
Madhwas and the Vaishnavas. They are always very anxious to show to the
world at large that their doctrines existed before the time of Sankara,
and that the Adwaitee doctrine was a deviation from their preexisting
orthodox Hinduism. And consequently they have assigned to him an
antiquity of less than 1,500 years.

It does not appear why Dr. Taylor thinks that he can allow Sankara about
900 years, or on what grounds Mr. Colebrooke is inclined to give him an
antiquity of about 1,000 years. No reliance can be placed on such
statements before the reasons assigned therefore are thoroughly sifted.

Fortunately, Mr. Wilson gives us the reason for Ram Mohun Roy's opinion.
We are inclined to believe that Ram Mohun Roy's calculation was made
with reference to the Sringeri list of Teachers or Gurus, as that was
the only list published up to this time; and as no other Matham, except
perhaps the Cumbaconum Matham, has a list of Gurus coming up to the
present time in uninterrupted succession. There is no necessity for
depending upon his calculation (which from its very nature cannot be
anything more than mere guesswork) when the old list preserved at
Sringeri contains the dates assigned to the various teachers. As these
dates have not been published up to the present time, and as Ram Mohun
Roy had merely a string of names before him, he was obliged to ascertain
Sankara's date by assigning a certain number of years on the average to
every teacher. Consequently, his opinion is of no importance whatever
when we have the statement of the Sringeri Matham which, as we have
already said, places Sankara some centuries before the Christian era.
The same remarks will apply to the calculation in question even if it
were made on the basis of the number of teachers contained in the list
preserved in the Cumbaconum Matham.

Very little importance can be attached to the oral evidence adduced by
some unknown persons before Dr. Buchanan in his travels through Malabar;
and we have only to consider the inferences that may be drawn from the
accounts contained in Kerala Utpatti. The various manuscript copies of
this work seem to differ in the date they assign to Sankaracharya; even
if the ease were otherwise, we cannot place any reliance upon this work,
for the following among other reasons:--

I. It is a well-known fact that the customs of Malabar are very
peculiar. Their defenders have been, consequently, pointing to some
great Rishi or some great philosopher of ancient India as their
legislator. Some of them affirm (probably the majority) that Parasurama
brought into existence some of these customs and left a special Smriti
for the guidance of the people of Malabar; others say that it was
Sankaracharya who sanctioned these peculiar customs. It is not very
difficult to perceive why these two persons were selected by them.
According to the Hindu Puranas, Parasurama lived in Malabar for some
time, and according to Hindu traditions Sankara was born in that
country. But it is extremely doubtful whether either of them had
anything to do with the peculiar customs of the said country. There is
no allusion whatever to any of these customs in Sankara's works. He
seems to have devoted his whole attention to religious reform, and it is
very improbable that he should have ever directed his attention to the
local customs of Malabar. While attempting to revive the philosophy of
the ancient Rishis, it is not likely that he should have sanctioned the
customs of Malabar, which are at variance with the rules laid down in
the Smritis of those very Rishis; and as far as our knowledge goes, he
left no written regulations regarding to the castes of Malabar.

II. The statements contained in Kerala Utpatti are opposed to the
account of Sankara's life given in almost all the Sankara Vijayams
(Biographies of Sankara) examined up to this time--viz., Vidyaranya's
Sankara Vijayam, Chitsukhachary's Sankara Vijayavilasam, Brihat Sankara
Vijayam, &c. According to the account contained in these works, Sankara
left Malabar in his eighth year, and returned to his native village when
his mother was on her death-bed, and on that occasion he remained there
only for a few days. It is difficult to see at what period of his
lifetime he was engaged in making regulations for the castes of Malabar.

III. The work under consideration represents Malabar as the seat of
Bhattapada's triumphs over the Buddhists, and says that this teacher
established himself in Malabar and expelled the Buddhists from that
country. This statement alone will be sufficient to show to our readers
the fictitious character of the account contained in this book.
According to every other Hindu work, this great teacher of Purva Mimamsa
was born in Northern India; almost all his famous disciples and
followers were living in that part of the country, and according to
Vidyaranya's account he died at Allahabad.

For the foregoing reasons we cannot place any reliance upon this account
of Malabar.

From an examination of the traditions and other accounts referred to
above, Mr. Wilson comes to the conclusion that Sankaracharya lived in
the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century of the
Christian era. The accounts of the Sringeri, Kudali and Cumbaconum
Mathams, and the traditions current in the Bombay Presidency, as shown
in the biographical sketches published at Bombay, place Sankara in some
century before the Christian era. On the other hand, Kerala Utpatti,
the information obtained by Dr. Buchanan in his travels through Malabar,
and the opinions expressed by Dr. Taylor and Mr. Colebrooke, concur in
assigning to him an antiquity of about 1,000 years. The remaining
traditions referred to by Mr. Wilson are as much opposed to his opinion
as to the conclusion that Sankara lived before Christ. We shall now
leave it to our readers to say whether, under such circumstances, Mr.
Wilson is justified in asserting that "the weight of authority is
altogether in favour" of his theory.

We have already referred to the writings of almost all the European
Orientalists who expressed an opinion upon the subject under discussion;
and we need hardly say that Sankara's date is yet to be ascertained.

We are obliged to comment at length on the opinions of European
Orientalists regarding Sankara's date, as there will be no probability
of any attention being paid to the opinion of Indian and Tibetan
initiates when it is generally believed that the question has been
finally settled by European Sanskritists. The Adepts referred to by "An
English F.T.S." are certainly in a position to clear up some of the
problems in Indian religious history. But there is very little chance
of their opinions being accepted by the general public under present
circumstances, unless they are supported by such evidence as is within
the reach of the outside world. As it is not always possible to procure
such evidence, there is very little use in publishing the information
which is in their possession until the public are willing to recognize
and admit the antiquity and trustworthiness of their traditions, the
extent of their powers, and the vastness of their knowledge. In the
absence of such proof as is above indicated, there is every likelihood
of their opinions being rejected as absurd and untenable; their motives
will no doubt be questioned, and some people may be tempted to deny even
the fact of their existence. It is often asked by Hindus as well as by
English men why these Adepts are so very unwilling to publish some
portion at least of the information they possess regarding the truths of
physical science. But, in doing so, they do not seem to perceive the
difference between the method by which they obtain their knowledge and
the process of modern scientific investigation by which the facts of
Nature are ascertained and its laws are discovered. Unless an Adept can
prove his conclusions by the same kind of reasoning as is adopted by the
modern scientist they remain undemonstrated to the outside world. It is
of course impossible for him to develop in a considerable number of
human beings such faculties as would enable them to perceive their
truth; and it is not always practicable to establish them by the
ordinary scientific method unless all the facts and laws on which his
demonstration is to be based have already been ascertained by modern
science. No Adept can be expected to anticipate the discoveries of the
next four or five centuries, and prove some grand scientific truth to
the entire satisfaction of the educated public after having discovered
every fact and law of Nature required for the said purpose by such
process of reasoning as would be accepted by them. They have to
encounter similar difficulties in giving any information regarding the
events of the ancient history of India.

Copyright (c) 2007. knowncrafts.net. All rights reserved.