________________
FOREWORD
XOH
that the general quality of things only is known in everyday life. Hence the objects are cognized as one and non-atomic. The special quality of the atoms can however be perceived only by the emancipated.
Ubeyaka.
A. D. 655-725 In the Sarvajñapariksa one Ubeyaka is mentioned and his theories refuted by Kamalasîla.' In a MS noticed by S. P. Pandit in his introduction to the edition of Gaudarahos in the Bombay Sanskrit Series, Umbeka is given as a different name of Bhavabhūti, who is styled therein a direct disciple of Kumarila Bhatta. In the Citsukhi also Ubeyaka is identified with Bhavabhati. Ubeyaka mentioned in the Tattvasangraha is a Miminsâ philoso. pher, and is stated as the commentator of S'lokavårtika of Kumârila." Bhavabhūti or Ubeyaka also was a great Mimańså philosopher as he had written an elaborate commentary on the Slokavårttika of Kumarila. The identification of Bhavabhati with Umbeka, Ubbeka, or Ubeyaka, is therefore certain, and it is also certain that Kumarila was the preceptor of Bhavabhūti alias Ubeyaka. Kamalas'ila's mention of his views makes Bhavabhūti earlier than 735 A. D. Kalhana's mention of him along with the king Yasovarman and Våkpatiraja makes all of them contemporaries of Lalitāditya, the Kashmir king whose reign extended from 693 to 729 A. D. The evidence of the MS noticed by S. P. Pandit makes him a disciple of Kumarila whom we have good reasons to place between 620-680 A. D. We shall therefore be justified in placing Ubeyaka in a period between 655 and 725. This date seems quite likely because Umbeka commented on Maņdana's Bhavandviveka. Mandana in his turn quoted Prabhakara who seems to be a disciple of Kumärila. This proves that Umbeka was very young
1. Tattvas, p. 812. 2. Gaudavaho, intro. Note IV, P, covi. 3. Citsukhi, p. 265. 4. Kamalas'ila quotes bis interpretaion of a
line of Kumârila's S'lokavárttika. B. Madras Oriental Conference Proceedings, 480 et, seg. 6. Vide-p. 410 of the Sooond Oriental Conference report.