like a proper foundation. But it is quite clear
from the 94th, 95th, 96th, and 97th verses of the 5th chapter of
Vidyaranya's Sankara Vijayam that Govinda Yogi and Patanjali were
identical. According to the immemorial custom observed amongst
initiates, Patanjali assumed the name of Govinda Yogi at the time of his
initiation by Goudapada. It cannot be contended that Vidyaranya
represented Patanjali as Sankara's Guru merely for the purpose of
assigning some importance to Sankara and his teaching. Sankara is
looked upon as a far greater man than Patanjali by the Adwaitees, and
nothing can be added to Sankara's reputation by Vidyaranya's assertion.
Moreover, Patanjali's views are not altogether identical with Sankara's
views; it may be seen from Sankara's writings that he attached no
importance whatever to the practices of Hatha Yog regarding which
Patanjali composed his Yoga Sutras. Under such circumstances, if
Vidyaranya had the option of selecting a Guru for Sankara, he would no
doubt have represented Vyasa himself (who is supposed to be still
living) as his Guru. We see no reason therefore to doubt the correctness
of the statement under examination. Therefore, as Sankara was
Patanjali's Chela, and as Goudapada was his Guru, his date will enable
us to fix the dates of Sankara and Goudapada. We may here point out to
our readers a mistake that appears in p. 148 of Mr. Sinnett's book on
Esoteric Buddhism as regards the latter personage. He is there
represented as Sankara's Guru; Mr. Sinnett was informed, we believe,
that he was Sankara's Paramaguru, and not having properly understood the
meaning of this expression, Mr. Sinnett wrote that he was Sankara's
Guru.

It is generally admitted by Orientalists that Patanjali lived before the
commencement of the Christian era. Mr. Barth places him in the second
century before the Christian era, accepting Goldstucker's opinion, and
Monier Williams does the same thing. Weber, who seems to have carefully
examined the opinions of all the other Orientalists who have written
upon the subject, comes to the conclusion that "we must for the present
rest satisfied with placing the date of the composition of the Bhashya
between B.C. 140 and A.D. 60, a result which considering the wretched
state of the chronology of Indian Liturgy generally is, despite its
indefiniteness, of no mean importance." And yet even this date rests
upon inferences drawn from one or two unimportant expression