Mr. Barth does not inform his readers where he obtained the
tradition referred to, and what reasons he has for supposing that it
refers to the first Sankaracharya, and that it is "the best accredited
tradition." When the matter is still open to discussion, Mr. Barth
should not have adopted any particular date if he is not prepared to
support it and establish it by proper arguments. The other traditions
alluded to are not intended, of course, to strengthen the authority of
the tradition relied upon. But the wording of the foot-note in question
seems to show that all the authorities and traditions relating to the
subject are comprised therein, when in fact the most important of them
are left out of consideration, as will be shown hereafter. No arguments
are to be found in support of the date assigned to Sankara in the other
portions of Mr. Barth's book, but there are a few isolated passages
which may be taken either as inferences from the statement in question
or arguments in its support, which it will be necessary to examine in
this connection.
Pages:
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389