________________
Jainism from the view point of Vedāntic Ācāryas (S.N. Dasgupta, H.I.Phil., Vol. III, pp. 399-402). Again, Nimbārka refers to Brahmasampradāya of Madhva in his Brahmasütrabhāsya. On account of these reasons, he can be placed somewhere in the middle or later half of the fourteenth century A.D. (S.N.Dasgupta, H.I.Phil., Vol. III, pp. 399-402; J.Sinha, H.I.Phil., Vol. II, p. 702).
These reasons given by scholars do not conclusively prove that Nimbārka flourished after Madhva. First of all, manuscript of Madhvamukhamardana which is attributed to Nimbārka is not available till-to-day, so, in such circumstances, it is very difficult to say whether Nimbārka refuted Madhva of the Dvaita school of Vedānta or Madhva of the Sānkhya Philosophy, who flourished in 6th century A.D. (E. Frauwallner. H.I.Philo. pp. 320-321). Nimbārka has refuted Sānkhya school in his Brahmasūtrabhāsya, so, in all probability, he might have criticised Madhya of Sānkhya School. We will be able to decide only after discovery of this manuscript. Secondly, Nimbārka does not refute Dvaita school of Vedānta in his Brahmasūtrabhāsya. Certainly, he could have refuted Madhva, to establish his view, if he is after Madhva. It is also possible that, Nimbārka school was not popular or prominent school at the time of Madhavācārya of Sarvadarśana-sangraha, to be mentioned. The writer of Sarvadarśana-sangraha has not included many prominent schools, such as Ajātivāda of Gaudapāda and Aupādhikabhedābheda of Bhāskara. It does not mean that they were not in existence prior to Madhavācārya.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
