________________ INTRODUCTION xxix Dr. A. S. Altekar has edited a copper plate inscription of Karkasuvarnavarsha, a Rashtrakuta king of Gujarat in the Epigraphia Indica (Vol. XXI. p. 133). It mentions the names of Mallavadi of the Mula-sangha-sen-amnaya, his pupil Sumati and Sumati's pupil Aparajita. This inscription belongs to Saka-samvat 743. Dr. Altekar conjectures that the author of the Nyaya-bindutippana is probably this Mallavadi. This view is quite consistent with the date of Dharmottara suggested above. It is mentioned by Kamalasila in his commentary on the Tattva-Samgraha that santarakshita had refuted the views of a Digambara Acharya named Sumatil. If we assume this Sumati to be the same person mentioned in the above-mentioned copperplate, we will have to reconsider the date of Sumati. Santarakshita lived in 705-762 A.D. according to Dr. Bhattacharya. The aforesaid copper-plate clearly indicates that Aparajita, the pupil of Sumati, lived in 821 A.D. In view of this fact we have to reconsider the date of Sumati which is c. 720 A.D. according to Dr. Bhattacharya2. In this case there is a gap of 100 years between the pupil and the preceptor. In order to avoid this long gap we can safely say that Sumati wrote his work near about 740 A.D. And this will not be inconsistent with the date of the composition of the Tattva-samgraha by Santarakshita, who composed it before 749 A.D., which is the date of the establishment of a vibara in Tibet by him. If we believe that Sumati and Santarakshita were contemporary, the date of Sumati then, might be c. 705-762 A.D. And in that case it is not an impossibility if his pupil Aparajita was alive in 821 A.D. And accordingly Mallavadi, the preceptor of Sumati, can safely be placed between 700-750 A.D. In the tippana of Mallavadi there is a mention of the views of other pre-Dharmottara commentators of the Nyaya-bindu, but there is no mention of the views of other sub-commentators of the Nyaya-bindu-tika. Durveka mentions the views of other sub-commentators, who have commented upon the Nyaya-bindutika. But such is not the case with Mallavadi. This also proves 1 Tattvasamgraha-tika, pp. 379, 382, 383, 489, 496. 2 Tattvasangraha, Introduction, p. 92.
