we have made the last two extracts quoted above, # namely, Mr. Rhys Davids' Manual of Buddhism. That circumstance is the alleged persecution of the Buddhists under the instigation of Kumârila Bhațța and Śankaracharya|+. But this still requires corroboration, and it opens up a question which is too wide to be fully discussed on the present occasion.
Looking back at the various lines of investigation which have now been pointed out it seems to me that they all run pretty closely towards the conclusion that our drama belongs to some- where about the early part of the eighth century A. D. I am not aware of any thing in the evidence, external or internal, bearing upon this subject, with which that conclusion stands in conflict. And this being so, I think, we may accept that conclusion, always remembering, of course, that the reasons by which it is supported are not such as to silence all possible suspicion.
One interesting question relating to our drama arises upon the stanza प्रारभ्यते, &c, which occurs at P. 135 infra, and which is also to be found in the Nîtis'ataka of Bbartŗihari. The next stanaza after that, beginning with किम् शेषस्य, is also to be found in some copies of Bhartŗīhari's S'atakas. As, however, the genuineness of this latter as forming a part of Bhartŗhari's work may be fairly doubted.॥ it is not necessary to discuss the question except as it is raised by the first stanza. Now, in the first place, it is remarkable that that starza is quoted in the Das'arüpâvaloka nominally as from the Bhartriharis'ataka, but in reality in the form which is plainly more appropriate to its context in the Mudrârâkshasa *| In the Bhartŗiharis'ataka the words त्वमिव in the last line must be impossible to understand. In the Mudrârâkshasa they are perfectly intelligible, and actually occur in four of our MSS.
* See p. 284. |* I must state, however, notwithstanding what is said, for instance, by Mr. Beal (Fa-Hian, 137) or by M. Barth (p. 135-6), that I have myself no faith in the traditions about these persecutions. As to S'ankarâchârya's supposed share in them, I expressed this opinion as far back as 1876, see Indian Antiquary, Vol. Y., p. 290. And as we learn from that great philosopher's work that, in his time, there was no universal sovereign, no Sârvabhaumrâjâ in India (see Bhâshya on Vedânt Sûtras, Bibl, Ind. ed., p. 314), it becomes certainly still more doubtful than it is on the other evidence, whether any such persecution as is alleged ever took place. Cf. on this point Barth's Religions of India, pp. 134-6 ++See our Bhartrihari, p. 7 (Nîtis'ataka). $ Ibid, p. 31 (Nîtis'ataka). ॥ See Preface to Bhartŗihari, p. XX. *| See p. 62.)
