________________
The Date of Siddharshi..
.
274 k
The remaining verses in Shilanka still remain unexplained by 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. P ea quoted in the 13th Astaka is fart the contemporary of Vikramaditya. This verse is from referaar composed by that illustrious logician. ( By and by I should say this furarea is printed except the introduction and will be out shortly. ) Another fagèa fourth in succession to fall flourished since the date of Haribhadra. This haga for gives us to unders: tand in Egnsart and arrant that Haribhadra is an authority. This means that Haribhadra must be older in date than Sidhasena gani. Besides fagea ferest is called by that epithet Arala 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 spoculation 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,
