In the history of the development of the various Advaitic schools, the period which witnessed the rise of Vishistadvaita and Dvaita is of importance, because it shows the state of the Advaita philosophy and the criticisms provoked by it. The two main schools of Advaita – Vivarana prasthana and Bhamati prasthana had already secured adherents throughout India, Vachaspati had been criticised by the Prakatarthakara as a follower of Mandana who had criticised Sankara. Therefore it is important that we should note the relative chronological position of the various outstanding authors after Sankara.

Sankara, as I have pointed elsewhere,(1) cannot be placed later than 620 A. D. since he is later than Dinnaga and far earlier than Bhavabhuti – Srikantha (720 A. D.) and was the older contemporary of Dharmakirti. Mr. Kunhan Raja has doubted the testimony of I-tsing as to the date of Bhartrhari and gives evidence to show that the Bhratrhari must be assigned to an earlier date probably the 5th century.(2) Suresvara, the disciple of Sankara is earlier than Patrakesari Vidyananda, the disciple of Akalanka (c. 600 A. D.).(3) Sarvajnatman can no longer be assumed to be the disciple of Suresvara, as he mentions Devesvara, Devananda and Sreshthananda as his guru, parama guru and paratpara guru.(4) Sarvajnatman is later than Vimuktatman, the author of Istasiddhi, who was later than Bhaskara.(5) Bhaskariya Vedantins are mentioned by Prabhacandra,(6) who is a pupil of Akalanka and Vidyananda. Therefore Bhaskara cannot be placed later than the middle of the 7th century. Moreover Santiraksita and his disciple Kamalasila (740 A. D.) criticise

1. QJMS., 1930. Proc. VIII. Or. Confer. 1935, p. 562.
2. S. K. Iyengar Comm. Vol.
3. An. Bh. Or. Inst., 1931.
4. Pramana Laksana, JOR., 1937; Madr. Univ. Journal, 1937
5. Istasiddhi, GOS., p. 375.
6. Prameya Kamala Martanda