These traditions
are evidently opposed to the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Wilson, and it
does not appear on what grounds their testimony is discredited by him.
Mr. Wilson is clearly wrong in stating that an antiquity of 1,600 years
is attributed to Sankara by the Sringeri Matham. We have already
referred to the account of the Sringeri Matham, and it is precisely
similar to the account given by the Kudali Brahmins. We have ascertained
that it is so from the agent of the Sringeri Matham at Madras, who has
recently published the list of teachers preserved at the said Matham
with the dates assigned to them. And further, we are unable to see which
"common tradition" makes Sankara "about 1,200 years old." As far as our
knowledge goes there is no such common tradition in India. The majority
of people in Southern India have, up to this time, been relying on the
Sringeri account, and in Northern India there seems to be no common
tradition. We have but a mass of contradictory accounts.
It is indeed surprising that an Orientalist of Mr.
Pages:
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400