12-30-2006, 04:42 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2006, 04:42 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
Bodhiji there is some controversy over the dating of Adi Shankaracharya, while some mutts accept the AD date, others like the Kanchi Mutt ascribe a date in the BC which means that Buddha's date should be shifted to an earlier period, I have not come to any conclusion but I have read some good arguements against the AD date, one of these posts I am posting here for anyone interested:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dating AdiSankara - Refuting Dharmakirti's timeline
- by Kalavai Venkat
Adi Sankara is dated to the 8th century AD on the assumption that
Dharmakirti lived in the 7th century AD, and that Sankara cites
Dharmakirti. Is the date of Dharmakirti known with certainty? The
evidences of Fa-hien, Hieun Tsang, I-Tsing and Taranatha are relevant
here. The first 3 are Chinese while the last is Tibetan. Do these
sources help date Dharmakirti with certainty or do they contradict
each other?
1. Hieun Tsang visited India between 629 AD and 645 AD. He mentions
Dharmapala, Chandrapala, Gunamati, Stiramati, Prabhamitra,
Jnanachandra and Silabhadra as the great scholars of Nalanda.
Interestingly, Hieun Tsang fails to mention Dharmakirti as a
contemporary. Some of these names also occur in I-Tsing's list of
scholars "of later period", in which we also find the names of
Dharmakirti, Simhachandra, Prajnagupta, Gunaprabha and Jinaprabha.
[Surendranath Sen, "India Through Chinese Eyes", p. 117]
2. I-Tsing visited India between 671 AD and 695 AD. He has left some
detailed accounts. While he was in India, he met a Chinese scholar,
Wu-Hing, who per I-Tsing had studied the logic of Jina and
Dharmakirti under a teacher that lived in Tiladha [Takakusu, "I-
Tsing", p. xlvi]. One may wonder why Wu-Hing didn't study under
Dharmakirti himself if they were contemporaries. Also, Jina was an
ancient logician, and interestingly Dharmakirti is grouped with him.
Historians have identified Fa-chan of I-Tsing [ibid, p. lix] with
Dharmakirti. One is very curious why Dharmakirti should be
transcribed in Chinese as Fa-chan, esp. when all the scholars listed
above were well versed in Sanskrit. Dharmakirti's teacher, Dharmapala
is not transcribed thus.
I-Tsing tells us that Bhartrihari died around 651 AD, nearly 20 years
before I-Tsing landed in India [ibid, p. xiv]. He also says that
Vritti sutra was composed by Jayaditya, a contemporary of I-Tsing.
Then he says that Patanjali wrote his churni [Bhartrihari calls
Patanjali churnikara] as a commentary on vritti sutra [ibid, p. 178].
This is a glaring contradiction because Patanjali lived atleast 8 or
9 centuries before the time of Jayaditya. I-Tsing was a keen
observer, but he had certain limitations. He stayed with each teacher
for just about 3 or 4 weeks to learn about a text. It seems that he
had comprehended Patanjali incorrectly, and hence his incorrect
observation.
3. Taranatha's account is very interesting. He makes only one
reference to a certain king named Bharthari, which modern historians
believe is a corruption of Bhartrihari [Trans. by Lama
Chimpa, "Taranatha", p. 249]. One wonders why something should be
prima facie treated as corruption.
Taranatha makes several references to Dharmakirti -- rather someone
historians have equated to Dharmakirti. He mentions 2 great scholars
of Nalanda, Chandragomi and Chandrakirti [ibid, p. 211]. The latter,
historians argue, is a misprint for Dharmakirti. One wonders, again,
why a recording should be assumed to be a misprint. Taranatha himself
makes certain assumptions about Dharmakirti. He states that all
earlier records mention Chudamani in South India as the place of
birth of Dharmakirti [ibid, p. 228], but adds, "all insiders [KV:
insider means the Bauddha bhikshus of the monastry] know the birth
place of Dharmakirti as Trimalaya. Therefore, this place must have
been known as the kingdom of Chudamani in the older days." One
wonders, why at all such an assumption is to be made. Is it not more
straight forward to infer that we are talking of 2 Dharmakirtis?
Taranatha makes a reference to a South Indian brahmin scholar
Kumaralila, and repeatedly argues that alone is the correct form
[ibid, p. 226]. Yet, this has not stopped the translators from
equating this Kumaralila with Kumarila. Taranatha says that
Dharmakirti learnt various systems from this Kumaralila. Per
Taranatha, finally, the 2 came to debate each other, and Kumaralila
was defeated. He became a Bauddha [ibid, p. 232]. Any one that is
familiar with Kumarila Bhatta's work will know that he never ended up
as a Bauddha. So, is the equation justified? Are we not talking of 2
individuals?
Taranatha provides an interesting account of Sankaracharya [ibid, p.
232 - 233]. Per this account, the Sankaracharya came to Nalanda and
challenged the Bauddhas for a debate. A debate between Dharmakirti
and the Sankaracharya ensued. The Sankaracharya was completely
defeated, and despite persuasions to the contrary, he jumped into the
Ganga and committed suicide. Before dying, he told his disciple
Bhatta acharya that he would be born as Bhatta's son. He was thus
born. And Bhatta continued his debate with Dharmakirti, while
Dharmakirti converted many of Sankaracharya's original disciples to
Buddhism. Bhatta continued his debate with Dharmakirti. He too was
defeated by Dharmakirti, and committed suicide. The reborn
Sankaracharya fled to the forest in the far east.
Anyone can easily tell that this is not an account of Adi Sankara at
all. Apart from the Tibetan source, other Buddhist schools don't
mention any debate with Sankaracharya. Per advaita traditions,
Sankara neither debated with Dharmakirti, nor committed suicide.
There is no account by Adi Sankara of ordaining any disciple, all of
such accounts originate with Sankara Dig Vijayas. So, the only
logical conclusion to make is that the Dharmakirti of Taranatha
didn't debate Adi Sankara, but another Sankaracharya (probably) in
the advaita tradition. If that were so, Adi Sankara must have lived
further anterior to the time of this Dharmakirti (or Fu-Chan).
4. Fa-Hien visited India between 401 AD and 410 AD. He mentions, in
his Chinese translation of Vajrasuchi upanishad that the Sanskrit
original was composed by Dharmakirti (Fa-Chan in Chinese) [J K
Nariman, "Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism", p. 185].
One wonders if one should trust Fa-Hien and assign Dharmakirti to 400
AD or earlier, or trust I-Tsing and assign Dharmakirti to around 650
AD. Would it not be better to re-examine the entire equation, and
start asking why Fa-Chan must be equated to Dharmakirti in the first
place? And ask, if there has been more than one Dharmakirti, as
evident from the accounts cited above?
So, it appears, what is cited as an irrefutable syllogism for dating
Adi Sankara to the 8th century AD is no more than a very weak
argument, nay, a bundle of untenable speculations.
Thanks
Kalavai Venkat
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/76739<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is also discused in KD Sethna's "Ancient India in new light" where he dates Buddha to an earlier period, I haven't read the book yet so I can't really say what his arguements are.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Dating AdiSankara - Refuting Dharmakirti's timeline
- by Kalavai Venkat
Adi Sankara is dated to the 8th century AD on the assumption that
Dharmakirti lived in the 7th century AD, and that Sankara cites
Dharmakirti. Is the date of Dharmakirti known with certainty? The
evidences of Fa-hien, Hieun Tsang, I-Tsing and Taranatha are relevant
here. The first 3 are Chinese while the last is Tibetan. Do these
sources help date Dharmakirti with certainty or do they contradict
each other?
1. Hieun Tsang visited India between 629 AD and 645 AD. He mentions
Dharmapala, Chandrapala, Gunamati, Stiramati, Prabhamitra,
Jnanachandra and Silabhadra as the great scholars of Nalanda.
Interestingly, Hieun Tsang fails to mention Dharmakirti as a
contemporary. Some of these names also occur in I-Tsing's list of
scholars "of later period", in which we also find the names of
Dharmakirti, Simhachandra, Prajnagupta, Gunaprabha and Jinaprabha.
[Surendranath Sen, "India Through Chinese Eyes", p. 117]
2. I-Tsing visited India between 671 AD and 695 AD. He has left some
detailed accounts. While he was in India, he met a Chinese scholar,
Wu-Hing, who per I-Tsing had studied the logic of Jina and
Dharmakirti under a teacher that lived in Tiladha [Takakusu, "I-
Tsing", p. xlvi]. One may wonder why Wu-Hing didn't study under
Dharmakirti himself if they were contemporaries. Also, Jina was an
ancient logician, and interestingly Dharmakirti is grouped with him.
Historians have identified Fa-chan of I-Tsing [ibid, p. lix] with
Dharmakirti. One is very curious why Dharmakirti should be
transcribed in Chinese as Fa-chan, esp. when all the scholars listed
above were well versed in Sanskrit. Dharmakirti's teacher, Dharmapala
is not transcribed thus.
I-Tsing tells us that Bhartrihari died around 651 AD, nearly 20 years
before I-Tsing landed in India [ibid, p. xiv]. He also says that
Vritti sutra was composed by Jayaditya, a contemporary of I-Tsing.
Then he says that Patanjali wrote his churni [Bhartrihari calls
Patanjali churnikara] as a commentary on vritti sutra [ibid, p. 178].
This is a glaring contradiction because Patanjali lived atleast 8 or
9 centuries before the time of Jayaditya. I-Tsing was a keen
observer, but he had certain limitations. He stayed with each teacher
for just about 3 or 4 weeks to learn about a text. It seems that he
had comprehended Patanjali incorrectly, and hence his incorrect
observation.
3. Taranatha's account is very interesting. He makes only one
reference to a certain king named Bharthari, which modern historians
believe is a corruption of Bhartrihari [Trans. by Lama
Chimpa, "Taranatha", p. 249]. One wonders why something should be
prima facie treated as corruption.
Taranatha makes several references to Dharmakirti -- rather someone
historians have equated to Dharmakirti. He mentions 2 great scholars
of Nalanda, Chandragomi and Chandrakirti [ibid, p. 211]. The latter,
historians argue, is a misprint for Dharmakirti. One wonders, again,
why a recording should be assumed to be a misprint. Taranatha himself
makes certain assumptions about Dharmakirti. He states that all
earlier records mention Chudamani in South India as the place of
birth of Dharmakirti [ibid, p. 228], but adds, "all insiders [KV:
insider means the Bauddha bhikshus of the monastry] know the birth
place of Dharmakirti as Trimalaya. Therefore, this place must have
been known as the kingdom of Chudamani in the older days." One
wonders, why at all such an assumption is to be made. Is it not more
straight forward to infer that we are talking of 2 Dharmakirtis?
Taranatha makes a reference to a South Indian brahmin scholar
Kumaralila, and repeatedly argues that alone is the correct form
[ibid, p. 226]. Yet, this has not stopped the translators from
equating this Kumaralila with Kumarila. Taranatha says that
Dharmakirti learnt various systems from this Kumaralila. Per
Taranatha, finally, the 2 came to debate each other, and Kumaralila
was defeated. He became a Bauddha [ibid, p. 232]. Any one that is
familiar with Kumarila Bhatta's work will know that he never ended up
as a Bauddha. So, is the equation justified? Are we not talking of 2
individuals?
Taranatha provides an interesting account of Sankaracharya [ibid, p.
232 - 233]. Per this account, the Sankaracharya came to Nalanda and
challenged the Bauddhas for a debate. A debate between Dharmakirti
and the Sankaracharya ensued. The Sankaracharya was completely
defeated, and despite persuasions to the contrary, he jumped into the
Ganga and committed suicide. Before dying, he told his disciple
Bhatta acharya that he would be born as Bhatta's son. He was thus
born. And Bhatta continued his debate with Dharmakirti, while
Dharmakirti converted many of Sankaracharya's original disciples to
Buddhism. Bhatta continued his debate with Dharmakirti. He too was
defeated by Dharmakirti, and committed suicide. The reborn
Sankaracharya fled to the forest in the far east.
Anyone can easily tell that this is not an account of Adi Sankara at
all. Apart from the Tibetan source, other Buddhist schools don't
mention any debate with Sankaracharya. Per advaita traditions,
Sankara neither debated with Dharmakirti, nor committed suicide.
There is no account by Adi Sankara of ordaining any disciple, all of
such accounts originate with Sankara Dig Vijayas. So, the only
logical conclusion to make is that the Dharmakirti of Taranatha
didn't debate Adi Sankara, but another Sankaracharya (probably) in
the advaita tradition. If that were so, Adi Sankara must have lived
further anterior to the time of this Dharmakirti (or Fu-Chan).
4. Fa-Hien visited India between 401 AD and 410 AD. He mentions, in
his Chinese translation of Vajrasuchi upanishad that the Sanskrit
original was composed by Dharmakirti (Fa-Chan in Chinese) [J K
Nariman, "Literary History of Sanskrit Buddhism", p. 185].
One wonders if one should trust Fa-Hien and assign Dharmakirti to 400
AD or earlier, or trust I-Tsing and assign Dharmakirti to around 650
AD. Would it not be better to re-examine the entire equation, and
start asking why Fa-Chan must be equated to Dharmakirti in the first
place? And ask, if there has been more than one Dharmakirti, as
evident from the accounts cited above?
So, it appears, what is cited as an irrefutable syllogism for dating
Adi Sankara to the 8th century AD is no more than a very weak
argument, nay, a bundle of untenable speculations.
Thanks
Kalavai Venkat
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivili...n/message/76739<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think this is also discused in KD Sethna's "Ancient India in new light" where he dates Buddha to an earlier period, I haven't read the book yet so I can't really say what his arguements are.