y by means of
the various stages in the growth or development of the Sanskrit language
and Indian literature. The time required for this growth is often
estimated in the same manner in which a geologist endeavours to fix the
time required for the gradual development of the various strata
composing the earth's crust. But we fail to perceive anything like a
proper method in making these calculations. It will be wrong to assume
that the growth of one language will require the same time as that of
another within the same limits. The peculiar characteristics of the
nation to whom the language belongs must be carefully taken into
consideration in attempting to make any such calculation. The history
of the said nation is equally important. Any one who examines Max
Muller's estimate of the so-called Sutra, Brahmana, Mantra and Khanda
periods, will be able to perceive that no attention has been paid to
these considerations. The time allotted to the growth of these four
"strata" of Vedic literature is purely arbitrary.

We have enumerated these defects in the writings of European
Orientalists for the purpose of showing to our readers that it is not
always safe to rely upon the conclusions arrived at by these writers
regarding the dates of ancient Indian history.

In examining the various quotations and traditions selected by European
Orientalists for the purpose of fixing Sankaracharya's date, special
care must be taken to see whether the person referred to was the very
first Sankaracharya who established the Adwaitee doctrine, or one of his
followers who became the Adhipathis (heads) of the various Mathams
(temples) established by him and his successors. Many of the Adwaitee
Mathadhipatis who succeeded him (especially of the Sringeri Matham) were
men of considerable renown and were well known throughout India during
their time. They are often referred to under the general name of
Sankaracharya. Consequently, any reference made to any one of these
Mathadhipatis is apt to be mistaken for a reference to the first
Sankaracharya himself.

Mr. Barth, whose opinion regarding Sankara's date is quoted by "An
English F.T.S." against the date assigned to that teacher in Mr.
Sinnett's book on Esoteric Buddhism, does not appear to have carefully
examined the subject himself. He assigns no reasons for the date given,
and does not even allude to the existence of other authorities and
traditions which conflict with the date adopted