time of its composition.  Taking into consideration the author’s vast knowledge and information, and the opportunities he had for collecting materials for his work when he was the head of the Sringeri Matham, there is every reason to believe that he had embodied in his work the most reliable information he could obtain.  Mr. Wilson, however, says that the book in question is “much too poetical and legendary” to be acknowledged as a great authority.  We admit that the style is highly poetical, but we deny that the work is legendary.  Mr. Wilson is not justified in characterizing it as such on account of its description of some of the wonderful phenomena shown by Sankara.  Probably the learned Orientalist would not be inclined to consider the Biblical account of Christ in the same light.  It is not the peculiar privilege of Christianity to have a miracle-worker for its first propagator.  In the following observations we shall take such facts as are required from this work.

It is generally believed that a person named Govinda Yogi was Sankara’s Guru, but it is not generally known that this Yogi was in fact Patanjali—­the great author of the Mahabhashya and the Yoga Sutras—­ under a new name.  A tradition current in Southern India represents him as one of the Chelas of Patanjali; but it is very doubtful if this tradition has anything like a proper foundation.  But it is quite clear from the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 97th verses of the 5th chapter of Vidyaranya’s Sankara Vijayam that Govinda Yogi and Patanjali were identical.  According to the immemorial custom observed amongst initiates, Patanjali assumed the name of Govinda Yogi at the time of his initiation by Goudapada.  It cannot be contended that Vidyaranya represented Patanjali as Sankara’s Guru merely for the purpose of assigning some importance to Sankara and his teaching.  Sankara is looked upon as a far greater man than Patanjali by the Adwaitees, and nothing can be added to Sankara’s reputation by Vidyaranya’s assertion.  Moreover, Patanjali’s views are not altogether identical with Sankara’s views; it may be seen from Sankara’s writings that he attached no importance whatever to the practices of Hatha Yog regarding which Patanjali composed his Yoga Sutras.  Under such circumstances, if Vidyaranya had the option of selecting a Guru for Sankara, he would no doubt have represented Vyasa himself (who is supposed to be still living) as his Guru.  We see no reason therefore to doubt the correctness of the statement under examination.  Therefore, as Sankara was Patanjali’s Chela, and as Goudapada was his Guru, his date will enable us to fix the dates of Sankara and Goudapada.  We may here point out to our readers a mistake that appears in p. 148 of Mr. Sinnett’s book on Esoteric Buddhism as regards the latter personage.  He is there represented as Sankara’s Guru; Mr. Sinnett was informed, we believe, that he was Sankara’s Paramaguru, and not having properly understood the meaning of this expression, Mr. Sinnett wrote that he was Sankara’s Guru.