In the history of the development of the various Advaitic Schools, the period which witnessed the rise of Visistadvaita 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 prasthãna and Bhãmati prasthana had already secured adherents throughout India, Vãcaspati had been criticised by the Prakatãrthakãra as a follower of Mandana who had criticised Sankara. Therefore it is important chat we should note the relative chronological position of the various outstanding authors after Sañkara.
Sankara, as I have pointed out elsewhere (1), cannot be placed later than 620 A.D. since he is later than Diñnãga and far earlier than Bhavabhuti-Srikantha (720 A.D.) and was the older contem porary of Dharmakirti. Mr. Kunhan Raja has doubted the testimony of I-tsing as to the date of Bhartrhari and gives evidence to show that Bhartrhari must be assigned to an earlier date probably the 5th century (2). Surésvara, the disciple of Sañkara is earlier than Patrakesari Vidyananda, the disciple of Akalañka (c. 6oo A.D.) (3). Sarvajnãtman can no longer be assumed to be the disciple of Surësvara, as he mentions Dëvèsvara, Dévananda and Sresthãnanda as his guru, parama guru and parãtpara guru (4). Sarvajñätman is later than Vimuktatman, the author of Istasiddhi, who was later than Bhäskara (5). Bhaskariya Vedãntins are mentioned by Prabhäcandra (6), who is a pupil of Akalañka and Vidyananda. Therefore Bhaskara cannot be placed later than the middle of the 7th century. Moreover Sãntiraksita and his disciple KamaIasiIa (740 A.D.) criticise
1. QJMS, 1930. Proc. VIII. Or. Confer. 1935, p. 562.