________________
The Date of Siddharshi.
274 k
annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
The remaining verses in Shilanka still remain unexplained hy you.
The argument about the quotation from Shivdharmottara in the 4th astaka is quite out of place. Nothing certain can be said about the date of that author. In the absence of proof one is justified in putting him before Haribhadra. The 6th, 7th, & 8th century having been posted as blank in the literature of India it is quite possible he may have been largely quoted from the ninth century, this does not mean that he flourished in the beginning of the ninth century. Thus premises being hazy, the conclusion is necessarily not conclusive and possibly misleading..
Your second argument in the second letter completely fails because you appear to confound two Siddhasenas. Haha quoted in the 13th Astaka is far the contemporary of Vikramaditya. This verse is from Fargar composed by that illustrious logician. ( By and by I should say this retalaart is printed except the introduction and will be out shortly.) Another sea fourth in succession to f iat flourished since the date of Haribhadra. This research gives us to understand in garant and carry that Haribhadra is an authority. This means that Haribhadra must be older in date than Sidhasena gani. Besides faza fara is called by that epithet HETAâ at vorious places. Haribhadra does not quote Sidhasena, but the order is reversed. Haribhadra (Yakini Putra) should not be confounded with Haribhadra the contemporary of Yashobhadra
Of course, I never meant to say that any how try to cling to your opinion; but I am sorry to say you pass over some of my best arguments on the point. Certainly in a chronoligical speculation one is never interested to commit mistakes purposely.
I hope to hear more on this point and also hope that before you write introduction to the उपमिति or समराइचकहा, you will carefully consider all what I said and possibly have further to say on this point,
