________________
xxii
than Slīlabhadra. This Sīlabhadra, says H. Ui, was, according to the Siyuki of Hiuen Tsang, 30 years old while studying with Dharmapāla, and was 106 years old when Hiuen Tsang met him. The Chinese pilgrim started from China in 629 A.D. and arrived at Rājagțha and saw him in 633 A.D. So Dharmapāla was still living in 557 A.D. These are circumstances which prompted H. Ui to arrive at the opinion in regard to the date of Dharmapāla above stated (v. Vais'eșika Philosophy, p. 10). Though the tradition of Kwechi and others is earlier and more trustworthy, yet it is not supported by I-tsing and the Tibetan authorities, (e.g., Tārānātha, pp. 161-2). Therefore we may, as it has been stated above, assign our commentator to the second quarter of the 7th Century A.D. (cf. Tattvasangraha, Intro. xcv).
: Scholars will themselves see how lucid, and elucidative his commentary is even in the translation of so linguistically unfamiliar and foreign language as Chinese, and how much more useful purpose would have been served, if the Sanskrit original of it were recovered. It is also equally regrettable that the commentary is incomplete.
As for Vinītadeva, the other commentator, we know very little of his life, and we have to content ourselves with what Tārānātha briefly remarks: “Zu der zeit liebten die Zauberkundigen : Konig Sahajavilāsa (Lhan.skyes.rol.pa), in Sri Nalanda der Ācārya Vinītadeva (er verfasste einen commenter zu dem Pramāņa in Sieben Abtheilungen), der Sautrāntika S'ubhamitra and der Ācārya Silapālita," . . . (Schiefner's translation,
