________________
OCTOBER, 1876.]
THE SANKARAVIJAYA OF ÅNANDAGIRI.
291
the above argument may be available as an however, there is other material to help us in argumentum ad hominem against Professor Wild our investigation, we shall not now go into son and those who think with him, I do not an inquiry touching the age of Vâchaspati consider it to be an argument which can be | Miéra. I taken as conclusive of he question before ns. In the eleventh section, the confutation of the
Let us therefore turn to the examination of Hiranyagarbh a sect, we have the following some of the other quotations contained in the stanzas in the speech of Sankara :Sankaravijaya. And, first, there is a very curi- अविचार्य विचार्य वा ब्रह्माध्यास निरूपणान् ।। ous one in the nineteenth section of the work, on
असंदेहफलत्वाभ्यां न विचार तदहेति ॥ the confutation of the Sakta sect, which runs
अध्यासोहं ब्रह्मशब्दोसाइब्रह्म श्रुतारितम् ।। as follows:- Tarhat Sifarisont post:
संदेहान्मुकिभावाच विचायें ब्रह्म वै ततः॥1 451: HT-1414. Now this I believe is a mis
These stanzas are to be found in the Vyúsádluiquotation. The passage, as here reproduced
karanamáld, an edition of which very useful
karanamald. an ed and quoted as a Srati text, is not such at all. work is appended to the edition of Sankam's The real Sruti text is to be found in full on
Brahmasútra Bhushya in the Bibliotheca Indica. the very next page, in the answer supposed to This work is there ascribed to Bharati Tîrbe given by Sankaracharya to his Sakta op- tha. And though there is nothing in the work ponent. But the words, precisely as we have as printed to indicate Bharati Tirtha to them here, form the first two lines of the be the author, and no colophon is reproduced, first invocation stanza of Vâcbaspati Misra's still in a MS. of the work which I have seen the coiamentary on the Súnkhya Kárikás, entitled
colophon attributes it to Bhârati Tirtha, Saakhyatattvakaumudí. From this I think we
and there is no sufficiently strong reason to disare safe in concluding that the anthor of the
trust this statement. Now Bh â rati Tir. Sankaravijaya quoted the passage merely from tha is a personage not altogether unknown. memory; that in doing so he probably con- To him Dr. Aufrecht ascribes that well-known founded the Sruti text with the lines of VA- Vedantic treatise Panchudasi. S He is prochaspati Misra based upon that text and very bably identical with the Bharati Tirtha who is similar to it; and that, therefore, he is in all
mentioned as one of the successors of Sankarprobability a later writer than Váchaspati
acharya as head of the matha of Sringeri !!! Miéra. Now the date of Vâch asp a ti And he is doubtless the Bharati Tirtha who is Miéra, it hardly needs to be stated, is not yet referred to by Ma dha vâch â rya in some of settled. But thus much is, I think, clear, that his writings. If He was probably either the direct he is not sufficiently old to have been known preceptor of Madhavacharya, or the preceptor to an immediate pupil of Sankaracharya. As, of his preceptor.** At all events we may be sure
belief in incarnations, the worship of Rama, Krishna, Siva, Vishna, and so forth. In my Tractate on the Ramayana and Introductory Essay to the Gitd I have, in effect, dissented from this notion. And see now, in support of my view, Ind. Ant. vol. IV. p. 800.
It may, perhape, be said that the partionlar passages quoted belong to the genuine Puronas, which Prof. Wilson considers to be older than the Puranas now current. But then the date ho gives would be, strictly speaking, the dates of the interpolat ons, not of the Purdnas. Besides, even on this view, the quotations from the Puranas do not help us here.
About Vichnapati's age copault Prof. Cowell's Preface to the Nydyak usumnjali, Dr. Hall's Contributions, &c. p. 87, and Ind. Ant. vol. I. pp. 298-9.
• For the Bibl. Ind. edition reads or for in the next line ; in the third line after it hoyrare;
I and in the last line for fag, dag: all which is confirmed by the MS. referred to in the text.
t Sankaravijaya, p. 86.
I No doubt the first three stanzas are, with one slight exception, verbatim with the opening stanzas of MadhaYa's Jaimintyanyayamalavistara. And Dr. Hall (Contributions, &o. p. 98) mentions & work by Vidy Aranys, disciple of Bharat Tirtha, bearing the name, substantially
identical with Vydaddhikaranamáld-namely, Velartidki. karanamdia. Bat Dr. Hall's descriptiou of the latter work does not suit the forner as printed, and Malhava may have borrowed from his preceptor, or preceptor's preceptor, the stanzas referred to as common to him and Bharati Tirtha. Compare Bühler's Catalogue, vol IV. p. 98.
See Catalogus, pp. 224 and 2231. But see Hall's Con. tributions, &c. p. 98; Bihler's Catalogue, vol. IV. p. 64; Catalogue of M88. in Central Provinces, p. 192; and the colophons in the Bombay editions (ope with the Sanskrit commentary, and the other with a translation); compare also the closing sentence of the Sarewranasangraha, though, perhape, it refers to the work motioned in the last noto. Dr. Aufrecht's suggestion as to this. Catalogus 9460 is not probable.
III Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. vol. X. p. 373. T See the last note but two, and Aufrecht's Catalogus (2686 and 873a), and also Jaiminsyanyayandlavistara, stanga 7 (Goldsticker's ed.).
According to the list of Acharyas preserved at Spingeri, "Madbach Arya became Jagadgaru in succession to 8 BhArstitirtha, 7th sok lapa keha of Arttika of the year called Prajotpatti S. 8. 1253 (1381 A.D."Burnell's Vanaabrdimana, pref. p. xiv.; and conf. Wilson's Works, vol. I. p. 2010.-3.D.
