FOOTNOTES:
[511] In various allusions to be found in the Kâdambarî and Harshacarita.
[512] The best known of these is the Tantravârttika, a commentary on the Pûrva-mîmâmsâ.
[513] This is the generally accepted date and does not appear to conflict with anything else that is at present known of Śankara. An alternative suggestion is some date between 590 and 650 (see Telang, I.A. XIII. 1884, p. 95 and Fleet, I.A. XVI. 1887, p. 41). But in this case, it is very strange that I-Ching does not mention so conspicuous an enemy of the Buddhists. It does not seem to me that the use of Pûṛnavarman's name by Śankara in an illustration (Comm. on Vedanta Sut. II. i. 17) necessarily implies they were contemporaries, but it does prove that he cannot have lived before Pûṛnavarman.
[514] Another tradition says he was born at Chidambaram, but the temple at Badrinath in the Himalayas said to have been founded by him has always been served by Nambuthiri Brahmans from Malabar. In 1910 a great temple erected in his honour was consecrated at Kaladi.
[515] His conflicts with them are described in works called Śankara-vijaya of which at least four are extant.
[516] They are called Daśanâmis which merely means that each ascetic bears one or other of ten surnames (Sarswati, Bharati, Tirtha, etc.). See for a further account of them Jogendra Nath Bhattacharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, pp. 374-379.
The order in all its branches seems to have strong pantheistic inclinations. They mutter the formula Sivo'ham, I am Śiva.
[517] I have been told by south Indian Pandits that they think Śaṅkara was bom in a Bhâgavata family and that there is some evidence his kinsmen were trustees of a temple of Kṛishṇa. The Śâktas also claim him, but the tradition that he opposed the Śâktas is strong and probable. Many hymns addressed to Vishṇu, Śiva and various forms of Durgâ are attributed to him. I have not been able to discover what is the external evidence for their authenticity but hymns must have been popular in south India before the time of Śaṅkara and it is eminently probable that he did not neglect this important branch of composition.
[518] See Bhattacharya, Hindu Castes and Sects, p. 16.