143
assume that the growth of one language will require the same time as that of another within the same limits. The peculiar characteristics of the nation to whom the language belongs must be carefully taken into consideration in attempting to make any such calculation. The history of the said nation is equally important. Any one who examines Max Müller's estimation of the so-called Sutra, Brahmana, Mantra and Khanda periods, will be able to perceive that no attention has been paid to these considerations. The time allotted to the growth of these four "Srata" of Vedic literature is purely arbitrary.
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 Shankaracharya's date, special care must be taken to see whether the person referred to was the very first Shankaracharya who established the Adwaitee doctrine or one of his followers who became the Adhipatis of the various Mathams eatablished by him and his successors. Many of the Adwaitee Mathadhipatis who succeeded him (especially at 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 Shankaracharya. Consequently any reference made to any one of these Mathadhipatis is apt to be mistaken for a reference to the first Shakaracharya himself.
Mr. Barth, whose opinion regarding Sankara's date is quoted by the London Theosophist 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 reason 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
