Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Minor Religious Systems v1.c4.s19.4

v1.c4.s19.4

The dates given by various writers for the birth and death of Kabīr are conflicting. Mr. Westcott makes him live for 78 years, from 1440 to 1518 A. D. ²), and according to Mr. Macauliffe he was born in Saṁvat 1455, corresponding to A. D. 1398³), and he died in A. D. 1518⁴), having lived for 119 years, five months and twenty-seven days. In a footnote he quotes from an original work the date Śaka 1370, corresponding to 1448 A. D., as the date of his death. Sikandar Lodi was on the throne of Delhi from 1488 to 1517 A. D. The last of the three dates does not harmonise with this, and so it must be given up. Rāmānanda, we have seen, is spoken of as having been born in 1298 A. D. and died in 1411 A. D. If Mr. Westcott's date for Kabīr's birth is true, Kabīr cannot have been a disciple of Rāmānanda. If that of Mr. Macauliffe is accepted, it is just possible that he should have so become, for at the time of Rāmānanda's death Kabīr must have been thirteen years of age, and he is represented in one of the legends to have been but a boy when he was accepted as a disciple by the old sage. The date 1518 A. D. given by both the writers for his death may be accepted as correct. But, if that of his birth given by Mr. Macauliffe is also accepted, we shall have to suppose that Kabīr lived for 119 years; Rāmānanda also according to the dates given in the last section lived for 113 years. Whether both of them lived such long lives might well be questioned. But, until we have more evidence, the dates for Rāmānanda already noticed and for Kabīr as given by Mr. Macauliffe may be provisionally accepted, and thus Kabīr might be considered to have really been a disciple of Rāmānanda, though, of course, being a boy of thirteen, he could not have taken part in his master's disputations with Paṇḍits. In Kabīr's works, however, so far as I have seen them, Rāmānanda's name does not occur, though the name Rāma as that of the Supreme Being and also the relation of the individual soul with Rāma as well as his refutation of the doctrine of God's being Videha or Nirguṇa, i. e. without attributes, must have been borrowed from Rāmānanda's doctrines, which again are based on Rāmānuja's system.