n this account
of Malabar.

From an examination of the traditions and other accounts referred to
above, Mr. Wilson comes to the conclusion that Sankaracharya lived in
the end of the eighth and the beginning of the ninth century of the
Christian era. The accounts of the Sringeri, Kudali and Cumbaconum
Mathams, and the traditions current in the Bombay Presidency, as shown
in the biographical sketches published at Bombay, place Sankara in some
century before the Christian era. On the other hand, Kerala Utpatti,
the information obtained by Dr. Buchanan in his travels through Malabar,
and the opinions expressed by Dr. Taylor and Mr. Colebrooke, concur in
assigning to him an antiquity of about 1,000 years. The remaining
traditions referred to by Mr. Wilson are as much opposed to his opinion
as to the conclusion that Sankara lived before Christ. We shall now
leave it to our readers to say whether, under such circumstances, Mr.
Wilson is justified in asserting that "the weight of authority is
altogether in favour" of his theory.

We have already referred to the writings of almost all the European
Orientalists who expressed an opinion upon the subject under discussion;
and we need hardly say that Sankara's date is yet to be ascertained.

We are obliged to comment at length on the opinions of European
Orientalists regarding Sankara's date, as there will be no probability
of any attention being paid to the opinion of Indian and Tibetan
initiates when it is generally believed that the question has been
finally settled by European Sanskritists. The Adepts referred to by "An
English F.T.S." are certainly in a position to clear up some of the
problems in Indian religious history. But there is very little chance
of their opinions being accepted by the general public under present
circumstances, unless they are supported by such evidence as is within
the reach of the outside world. As it is not always possible to procure
such evidence, there is very little use in publishing the information
which is in their possession until the public are willing to recognize
and admit the antiquity and trustworthiness of their traditions, the
extent of their powers, and the vastness of their knowledge. In the
absence of such proof as is above indicated, there is every likelihood
of their opinions being rejected as absurd and untenable; their motives
will no doubt be questioned, and some people may be tempted to deny even
the fact of their e