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