1. Classical, Retrieving Samkhya History History an Ascent from Dawn to Meridian Lallanji Gopal

Contemporary Researches in Hindu Philosophy & Religion, no. 11

Retrieving SAMKHYA History An Ascent from Dawn to Meridiar

Lallanji Gopal

Retrieving

Retrieving Sāmkhya History An 'Ascent from Dawn to Meridian

Contemporary Researches in Hindu Philosophy & Religion, no. 11 Retrieving Sāmkhya History An Ascent from Dawn to Meridian

by Ad Lallanji Gopal

D.K.Printworld(P)Ltd. NEW DELHI - 110 015

Cataloging in Publication Data - DK

Gopal, Lallanji, 1934-1999. Retrieving Samkhya history. (Contemporary researches in Hindu philosophy & religion, no. 11). Includes bibliographical references (p. Includes index.

1. Sankhya. 2. Philosophy, Hindu. I. Title II. Series: Contemporary researches in Hindu philosophy & religion, no. 11.

ISBN 81-246-0143-7

First Published in India in 2000 C Author

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior written permission of both the copyright owner, indicated above, and the publisher.

Published and printed in India by: D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. Regd. office: 'Sri Kunj', F-52, Bali Nagar New Delhi-110015 Phones: (011) 545-3975, 546-6019; Fax : (011) 546-5926 E-mail: [email protected]

Contents

1. Prologue 1

(A) A plea for History of Sāmkhya (B) Samkhya History in Reverse Gear (C) Changing meaning of Sāmkhya 2. Sāmkhya and Vedic Tradition 43

3. Sāmkhya and the Upanisads 59

4. Sämkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 81

5. Yajnavalkya- An Independent Samkhya Tradition 105 6. Sämkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 123

6. Ārada - An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 139 8. Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas - Paurika, 153 Pañcādhikaraņa and Ulūka 9. New Beginnings by Jaigīsavya and Āvatya 175

7. Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 187

8. Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahābhārata 205

9. Samkhya in the Dharmasutras - 235 The Devaladharmasūtra 13. Sāmkhya and Hārītadharmasūtra 257

10. Patanjali as a Sāmkhya Ācārya 263

11. Sāmkhya Schools 277

12. Sāmkhya - Seśvara and Nirīśvara 301

vi Retrieving Samkhya History 17. Vārşagaņya, A New Samkhya Tradition 319 18. Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Sāmkhya 341 19, Epilogue - Standardisation and 383 Systematisation of Sämkhya Appendices 1 Vodhu 397 II - Asita-Devala in Isibhāsiyāi 401 Al-Birūni on Patañjali 421 IV - Vyādi, the Vindhyavāsin 439 V - An Early Buddhist Account of Samkhya 445 Index 465

1

Prologue

(A) A PLEA FOR THE HISTORY OF SÄMKHYA

History and Philosophy THE progress of culture and civilisation consists essentially in acquisition, aplication and preservation of knowledge. The edifice of knowledge rests on the four pillars of scientific method, mathematies, philosophy and history. All other disciplines and branches of learning are the offshoots or projections of these four, or else they result from a combination of two or more of these or their sub-branches. History is one of the four basic sciences. It is generally identified with its contents in the form of information relating to certain aspects of the past of societies and communities. But history is not restricted in its scope and contents. Its real significance does not lie in the found of information it collects. History is important for its methodology, its approach, its way of looking at facts. It has a developmental approach. It does not view things as fixed, static or dead. It considers them in the process of change and development. It studies their background, their genesis and the stages in their growth, including the influences which have shaped them. This gives the whole picture and the correct in understanding. History is the lamp which illumines other branches ofknowledge. It is not restricted to its own specialised areas. It has an equal applicability to all spheres of information and all branches of learning. All branches of knowledge gain by the use of the historical

2 Retrieving Samkhya History method and approach. The information acquires a new dimension, a fullness and a correctness. It is viewed in its proper perspective and its totality. History and philosophy combine wonderfully. They are supplimentary to one another. Philosophy is helpful in historical analyses. History, for a meaningful understanding, requires to be philosophically interpreted. Philosophy, in its turn, when subjected to the process ofhistorical analysis, unfolds its meaning better. The philosophy of history and a history of philosophy offer a happy and healthy blending. In practice, however, the followers of the two disciplines do not combine to the extent desirable. They consider the other one to be beyond their scope and interest. A historian generally refrains from philosophising. A philosopher, likewise, is absorded with his concepts, their meaning and validity. He generally does not bother about their genesis and growth. He takes the developed concepts in their finished form and studies them. History, to him, does not serve much useful purpose. In the case of India the separation of the two has affected them adversely. Knowing well that any generalisation on such issues can be objected to by citing exceptions, we would submit that it is seldom that a historian takes interest in the problems of philosophies, and a philosopher presenting his study of a philosophical system as a history is not met generally, Here we propose to study Samkhya through the historical method to understand the scope of possibilities and the nature of problems.

History of Samkhya Samkhya enjoys a high respectability among the philosophical systems. It is considered to have been the oldest philosophy. It was given a honoured position as characteristic of the philosophical thought in early periods. Samkhya has had a glorious history. In the beginning it signified philosophical thought in general. Later it became synonymous with philosophy and finally came to stand for a philosophy. Samkhya influenced the growth of philosophy. Through a process of interaction it contributed to the development of

Prologue 3 philosophical thought in other systems also. Its views on metaphysics and epistemology receive a respectful consideration from other systems. Sämkhya is noteworthy for keeping philosophy separate and distinct and not mixing it with the requirements of religion. The Samkhya dualism is a happy combination of pragmatic realities and spiritual orientation. The world cannot be dismissed as unreal. It is to be understood. But materiality yields primacy to the spiritual element. Samkhya is a philosophy of hope for spiritual advancement leading to emancipation. Many theistic sects, even when adopting a Vedäntic cover, subscribe to the Samkhya dualism. Samkhya finds a prestigious recognition in the Gita and many Puranas. In Indian aesthetic tradition, in literature and are alike, the Samkhya speculations are accepted as the basis. Samkhya provides the philosophical support to the system of Ayurveda. Some scholars have traced the historical development of the Samkhya system, G.J. Larson1 has attempted a judicious and critical appraisal of all earlier studies on the subject. He does not analyse the work done by P.Chakravarti' and the Hindi publications of U.V.Shastri' and A.P. Mishra,'possibly because they emphasise the development through the texts concerned and not in terms of the concepts and principles. Larson is himself cautious and does not determine stages in the history of Samkhya. He speaks broadly of three periods of Ancient speculations, Proto-Samkhya and Classical Samkhya. Larson considers only the third, the Classical Samkhya, as Samkhya. In his recent work Samkhya5 he does not admit the first two as being Samkhya and does not give any space to them. He modifies his view about the Samkhyakarika. He splits the Classical Samkhya into two phases: the pre-Karika and and the Karika. He includes

L Classical Samkhya, pp. 15-74. 2 Original and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought. - 3. Samkhya-darsana ka Itihāsa 4. Samkhya-darsana kt Aitihāsikha Paramparā. 5. C. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya, Samkhya (Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies), ed. by K. H, Potter, Vol, IV, pp. 3-41.

4 Retrieving Samkhya History Paurika, Pancādhikaraņa, Patanjali and Vārșaganya in the pre- Karika phase. The Karika phase is represented by the followers of Varsaganya. In this category he includes both Vindhyavasin and Isvarakrsna. Thus, the Samkhyakarika represents not the beginning of Classical Samkhya, but its culmination. The survey attempted by Larson exposes the inadequacy of the earlier studies. Beside the paucity of evidence and the non- availability of original texts, the reconstructions suffer from misconceptions about the chronology of texts and assumptions about the nature of Samkhya and the importance of the Samkhyakarika. This necessitates fresh attempts at retrieving Samkhya history by reappraising available evidence and utilising new sources of information. The validity of the assumptions taken for granted is to be looked into. The historical approach is expected to throw welcome light on many an obscure and debated point.

(B) SAMKHYA HISTORY IN REVERSE GEAR

İsvarakrsna and the History of Smkhya IMPORTANCE OF IŚVARAKRSNA The Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrsna in the most celebrated Samkhya Text. It systematised the Samkhya system with the result that subsequently scholars belonging to the Samkhya tradition as well as those connected with other systems took his formulation to be the standard form of Samkhya. Al-Birüni (eleventh century), who relies on the most authoritative text of a system for presenting its salient features, uses the Samkhyakarika in describing the Samkhya philosophy. Likewise, Madhava (fourteenth century), in his Sarvadarsanasamgraha, presents Samkhya doctrines solely using the Samkhyakarika." Modern authorities on Samkhya aptly describe the Samkhyakarika as representing the Classical Samkhya. But, the outstanding contribution made by Isvarakrsna has not 6. E. Sachau, Alberuni's India, pp. 226-7, 30, 40-9, 62, 132. 7. Madhava, Sarvadarsanasamgraha, tr.by E.B. Cowell and A E.Gough, pp. 221-30.

Prologue 5 been without some bad effects. The high respect earned by the Samkhyakarika, on account of its systematic and unambiguous formulation seems to have pushed into the background earlier writings on Samkhya, which were relegated into oblivion in course of time. PROBLEMS OF PRE-IŚVARAKRSNA HISTORY The absence of independent Samkhya texts and the standardised formulation in the Samkhyakarika have created in the minds of modern scholars certain assumptions which have affected the study of Samkhya, As the Samkhyakarika is the earliest known Samkhya text and as subsequent writers only attempted commentaries on it, it has been inferred that the Samkhya system has not undergone any basic change in its history. Any formulation of the Samkhya system, showing any point or aspect apposed to the Samkhya- karika, it is assumed to be a later development. Such texts or passages are given a later date and, if this involves serious chronological difficulties, efforts are made to explain them as influences of other systems or as attempts to accomodate differring systems and to synthesise them with Samkhya. But, in spite of several scholarly studies we have not been able to delineate the history of Samkhya in pre-Isvarakrsna times. It is shrouded in the mist of mythology and controversies. On account of the non-availability of authentic information we cannot say anything definite about Kapila, the founder of the Samkhya system, his life and contributions, his philosophical ideas, and writings. The deft fingers of time have been busy weaving around him a cob-web of legends transforming him into a mythological figure. Some scholars suspect the historicity of Asuri and even of Pancasikha. Even in the case of Varsaganya, Vindhyavasin and other predecessors of Isvarakrsna the known facts about their life and views are disgustingly few and far from being meaningful. Another difficulty is the absence of Samkhya text which can be definitely placed in this period. The claims of Samkhya-

6 Retrieving Samkhya History pravacanasūtra and Tattvasamāsasūtra to be recognised as ancient texts have been challenged. We have some passages, quoted in a few later texts, which give Samkhya principles or accounts revealing Sāmkhya elements or influences. Garbe® and Ottamare do not contemplate any major change in the Samkhya system in the course of its long history. According to them, the original formulation of the system by Kapila contained all the important features of the system, and the Samkhyakārika does not mark any significant departure from the earlier accounts. Other scholars do not openly subscribe to the view of the Samkhya system remaining static, but seem to work under that unconscious impression. They limit their task to discussing the origin of the Samkhya and to delineating the sources, trends or traditions which have contributed to the formation of the Samkhya system. The best illustration of this type of study is to be found in the scholarly work of S.N. Dasgupta.10 Many scholars have attempted a reconstruction of the history of Samkhya in pre-Isvarakrsna times.1 But no unanimity has been reached even on some important issues. The origin of Samkhya is bedated: whether it is from Vedic or non-Vedic or folk stream. The original meaning of the term Samkhya, relevant to the nature of Samkhya in earliest stages, is not beyond the pale of controversy. The chronology of the earliest Samkhya philosophers and their contributions, their philosophical ideas and their writings are not known for definite. Many later Samkhya philosophers are mere names. We are not sure about the relative chronology of these philosophers, what to say of their exact dates. As a result of these dark areas in our knowledge of pre-Isvarakrsna Samkhya, we cannot determine the stages through which Samkhya principles came to acquire their form recorded by Isvarakrsņa. 8. Garbe (ed.), Samkhya Sütra Vrtti, p. iv. 9. P.Oltramare, L'Histoire des Idees Theosophiques dans L'Inde, Vol. I, pp. 219f. 10. S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 211-21 11. G.J. Larson, Classical Samkhya, pp. 17-72, 245-56

Prologue 7

SAMKHYAKĀRIKĀ AS THE BASIS FOR RECONSTRUCTION We are of the opinion that for this work also the Samkhyakarika must form the basis of our enquiry and reconstruction. This is the earliest complete work on Samkhya principles. Isvakrsņa makes a pointed reference to his familiarity with the early history of Samkhya. He mentions its original formulation by Kapila and its being handed down through Asuri and Pancasikha. He also refers to the Samkhya doctrine being transmitted through a succession of teachers and disciples (sisya-parampara). He was familiar with the writings of many Samkhya philosophers who preceded him. Isvarakrsna was well acquainted with the rich, vast literature produced by his predecessors. He unequivocally admits that he has presented the doctrine only in a summarised form (samksiptam) and has avoided referring to the illustrative tales and criticism of the point of view of opponents (akhyayikavirahitah paravādaviva- ritasca'pi). In a concluding verse preserved in the Matharaurtti Isvarakrsna describes his own account of Samkhya as briefly expounded (tasmat samasadrstam sastram). On account of its vastness the Samkhya literature is difficult to understand, hence Isvarakrsna puts forward the claim that he has fully comprehended the system (samyag vijñāya siddhāntam). From Isvarakrsna's own assertion it can be deduced that the system did not have a monolithic form. It seems that the writings ofhis predecessors contained differing versions on severalimportant points. Isvarakrsna is at pains to establish that he is faithful to the Samkhya tradition and has not done injustice to its earlier accounts. He claims to have fully comprehended the Samkhya system. He asserts that whatever principles are enunciated in the whole of the sasthitantra, they all are found in his presentation in seventy verses (karika 72). In the concluding verse of the Samkhyakārika, found only in the Matharavrtti (karika 73), Isvarakrsna claims that his presentation is not defective in its meaning or essence (arthatah); it is like the reflection reproduced in a mirror of the big form of the tantra. In the Samkhyakarika the verses significant for the

8 Retrieving Samkhya History reconstruction of the early history of Samkhya are kārikās 69 to 73. The introductory two kārikas also contain some useful references, particularly about the original nature and goal of Samkhya. With the help of these karikas we may try to determine the broad outlines of the early history of Samkhya. For the sake of convenience we will process the account in the reverse gear. CONTRIBUTIONS OF IŚVARAKRSNA Let us begin with Isvarakrsna himself. Though Isvarakrsna enjoys a pre-eminent position in the history of Samkhya and the credit for establishing the classical Samkhya, he himself does not claim much glory for himself. In karika 71 Isvarakrsna is described as áryamati (noble-minded). This type of adjective need not be on insertion by a devoted disciple; the author himself could have used it without incurring the criticism for self-glorification. Isvarakrsna asserts that he has presented Samkhya principles in a summarised manner. The one new features is the use of arya metre (aryabhih). Another significant feature of his account is that Isvarakrsna does not give any place to illustrative tales and criticism of the point of view of other systems, thus suggesting that he has confined himself to the undisputed and commonly accepted principles. We have pointed out the emphasis which Isvarakrsna gives to his account being in full consonance with the Samkhya system. He makes a pointed reference to the sasthitantra. Of the various accounts of the system, the one associated with sasthitantra was widely respected as the most prominent stream of Samkhya thought. Iśvarakrsna mentions Kapila, Āsuri and Pancasikha alone. Possibly the main tradition in Samkhya, known as sasthitantra came through the line of Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha. After Pancasikha there was no outstanding scholar to maintain this tradition. Its prominence was possibly over-shadowed by a crowd of philosophers subscribing to differing principles. Isvarakrsna can be given credit for re-establishing the supremacy of the sasthitantra version. Thus, İsvarakrsna restored the ancient links of Samkhya.

Prologue 9

Isvarakrsna does not seem to have added any new principles. The claim for presenting a summarised account does not provide much scope for this. Of course, it can be admitted that, in his effort to present a coherent account, he made improvements by way of a better style, a more appropriate expression, and a more apt analogy. But, it can be expected that in the process of summarising and, introducing coherence and compactness, Isvarakrsna minimised the importance of certain principles and details and in some cases omitted them altogether. Isvarakrsna made a significant deviation in his account of the sasthitantra. The way he emphasises the fact that his account faithfully represents the Samkhya principles, that all the arthas (padarthas or tattvas) in the sasthitantra are enunciated in his own text and that, though summarised, they mirror the original is a clear indication that there were differences between his account and the version generally associated with the sasthitantra. The sixty principles cotemplated by the sasthitantra considered of ten mulikarthas and fifty pratyaya-sargas. We find that the Samkhyakārikā (kārikās 46-47) enumerates the fifty pratyaya- sargas but does not mention the ten mulikarthas. It was to cover up this change, of omitting the ten mūlikarthas that Isvarakrsna was pleading for his faithfulness to the original sasthitantra. Possibly he meant to canvas that by omitting the ten mulikorthas he has not caused any harm to the original sasthitantra and that the purpose served by the ten mūlikarthas has been adequately covered by him. If we have to list the main contributions of Isvarakrsna, then possibly the omission of the mūlikarthas will figure in it.

RICHNESS OF PRE-ISVARAKRSNA SĀMKHYA The period after Pancasikha but before Iśvarakrsna was a long one. It produced a line of distinguished Samkhya philosophers. Though no single text composed in this period is available, we do get stray quotations from these works. Some of the names of the Samkhya philosophers are those of renowned sages, but others distinctly were historical individuals. It may be sugested that in view of their

10 Retrieving Samkhya History known reputation the sages were associated with Samkhya. Another possibility is that some person belonging to their school or lineage contributed to the enrichment of the Samkhya tradition. But the fact that a limited few and not a large number of sages are thus associated with the Samkhya makes a case for the genuineness of their Samkhya association. Isvarakrsna says that there was a continuous living tradition about the Samkhya philosophers. A long line of teacher-student tradition (sisya-parampara) had preserved the principles and writings of these philosophers. The Samkhya literature produced in this period was voluminous indeed. This is evident from Isvarakrsna's own admission that he presents a summarised account of the principles. If seems that the presentation of Samkhya principles by their earlier sages and texts was not rigidly uniform. There was a baffling variation in the enunciation of many principles by various schools and philosophers making it difficult to comprehend clearly the essentials of the system. Isvarakrsna makes a bold claim that he clearly understood the principles of the system. It is not possible to identify all the important principles enunciated by the earlier philosophers. Later tradition shows how on some basic points Samkhya philosophers upheld widely divergent views, sometimes violently opposed to the generally accepted notions about Samkhya. The quotations from the writings of these philosophers, which occur in later works, cannot be expected to cover even the important principles enunciated by them. But they do indicate the range of variation and some important and characteristic principles enunciated by them From the Samkhyakarika we learn about three important features of the Samkhya writings in this period. Form of Writing The first relates to the form of these writings. Isvarakrsna takes legitimate pride in presenting the principles in drya metre. This

Prologue 11

would suggest that earlier the Samkhya philosophy was not versified in arya; possibly it was in prose and not in verses. But, this does not completely rule out the use of verses. Verses could have occurred occasionally. It is also not unlikely that some text was versified, though not in drya metre. But the use of prose was not necessarily confined to the employment of sutras. Some philosophers could have expounded their principles through analysis, elaboration, discussion and analogy. In the surviving extracts we find passages with these characteristics. İsvarakrşņa says that he omitted akhyāyikas and paravāda from his text. By implication these two formed the characteristics of the Samkhya literature before his times. The richness and volume of the earlier Samkhya writings was possibly largely due to these two features.

Äkhyáyiká In Sanskrit literature the term akhyayika is used in a technical sense. It is differentiated from katha, which, in popular usage, has a similar import. Ancient authorities on Kavyasastra list the points of differences between the two. Bhāmaha, in his Kāvyālamkāra,12 and Dandin, in his Kavyâdarsa,13describe the characteristic features of the two. Later texts, the Agni Purana,14 the Kavyalamkara15 of Rudrața, the Dhvanyaloka"5 of Anandavardhana and the Sahityadarpana17 of Visvanatha point out minute differences between the two. But these are evidently elaborations deduced from the two compositions of Bana, the Harsacarita and the Kädambari, which were taken to be classic examples of akhyāyika

12. The use of the word artha here may refer to padarthas or tattuas in Samkhya. In karika 72 arthah used twice has the same sense. 13 1.23-30. 14 L25-9 15. Ch. 337. 13-7. 16. XVI.20-7. 17. III

12 Retrieving Samkhya History and kntha. The original and the basic difference between the two is the one mentioned in the Amarakosa1" which possibly was adopted by the Alamkara-samgraha.15 According to Amarasimha, the äkhyāyika is written on the basis of a well-known subject-matter. whereas the katha is the creation of imagination. The Alamkara samgraha, in making the difference more explicit, says that, whereas the theme of katha is a conjectured one, the akyayika is based on true facts. Thus, the akhyayika relates to a theme which is historically correct; the katha is a fiction of imagination. It must, however, be noted that some authorities maintain that there is no real difference between the two; they are the two names of one and the same literary type. This view was expressed by such an early authority as Dandin.2 But we do not know of any akhyayika earlier than the Harsacarita. Neither any text, the name of any such text has survived. In such a situation the possibility of an ākhyāyika text numerating or illustrating Samkhya principles is difficult to expect. Then, how are we to explain the reference in the Samkhyakarika? When Isvarakrsna aims at a summarised narration, each single expression used by him must have some appropriate relevance. The reference suggests that, if there was no separate text of the nature of kavya, there were certainly works which concerned historical persons belonging to the Samkhya tradition. Possibly here Isvarakrsna is referring to the chapters in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, particularly its Moksadharmaparva section. Several chapters in this section give an account of Samkhya principles. The enunciation is done through an interlocution between well-known personalities who enjoy a high reputation in the history of Indian thought, specially Samkhya philosophy. These celebrities include the names of Pancasikha, Jaigisavya, Asita-Devala Yajnavalkya and Janaka. Significantly the author of these chapters presents them as

18. VI.332-6 19. 1321-2-akhyaytkapalabdhartha \ prabandhakalpana katha l 20. katha kalpitavrthanta satyarthakhyayika mata l

Prologue 13

pieces of old history (itihasam puratanam). Thus, it would seem that Isvarakrsna, by using the term akhyayika, referred to the chapters in the Santiparva which present Samkhya principles as interlocution between famous Samkhya scholars. It is not unlikely that there were similar accounts in other texts lost in course of centuries.

Paravādo The other type of Samkhya writings in times preceding the composition of the Samkhyakarika, scrupulously avoided by Isvarakrsna, are mentioned as paravada. Literally the term means the doctrines of others. It includes a criticism of the principles of other schools of philosophy and a reply to the points of criticism raised by the opposing philosophers. Indian systems of philosophy do not confine themselves to an enunciation of their own principles. They often present as purva-paksa the criticism raised against their philosophy as also points which possibly could be raised, and then meet them to establish their own point of view. This type of literature assumed volumnious proportion in later periods. There are indications that even before the times of Isvarakrsna some Samkhya philosophers went beyond the work of presenting Samkhya principles. They argued in favour of the Samkhya view and against the criticism by other systems. It is this type of literature that has suffered most by the standardisation and summarisation enforced by Isvarakrsna. The quotations from the writings of Samkhya philosophers of this phase of Samkhya history, surviving in later commentaries, contain passages which may be classed as paravāda mentioned by Isvarakrsna.21

FIRST PHASE OF SAMKHYA HISTORY The first phase in the formulation and evolution of Samkhya principles covers the lives and works of Kapila, Äsuri and Pancasikha. As in the case of the two characteristics of a later period covered above, here also we will confine ourselves to information recorded by Ivarakrsņa.

21. Kavyadarśa, 1.28- tatkathakhyayiketyeka jatih sanjnadvayankita

14 Retrieving Samkhya History Kapila The Samkhyakarika (karika 69) says that this secret knowledge about prakrti functioning for the sake of purusa, wherein is deliberated the existence, origin and extinction of all beings, was expounded by the greatest sage. In the following karikd the sage is referred to as muni and Samkhya is described as pure and foremost. Here the adjective agryam does not refer merely to the excellence of the doctrines but also suggests the chronological position of Sämkhya. Samkhya is generally taken to be the earliest system of philosophy to emerge in India. Isvarakrsna is possibly alluding to the respect which Samkhya enjoyed as the oldest system of philosophy. The honour, which it enjoyed, is also communicated by the adjective pavitram used for it. The Samkhyakarika refers to Samkhya as guhyam which means secret or mysterious. According to Iśvarakrsna, Kapila duly expounded this secret knowledge. This provides an interesting information about the origin and early formulation of Samkhya principles. It seems that even before Kapila gave the first systematic exposition of Samkhya, it circulated long as the characteristic philosophy of a closed group. Possibly during the early period, when the Vedic cult of sacrifice was the dominant religion, a class of thinkers applied themselves to a deliberation of deeper problems of life. This tradition existed as a system of thought as distinguished from the cult of sacrificial rituals. The Samkhyakārika refers to Kapila as parama rsi and muni. In the vedic literature we meet the terms yati and muni. Scholars generally take them to represent a tradition different from the Vedic one. Often they are described as belonging to the Śramana tradition. This tradition was concerned with a deliberation of deeper problems of life. Isvarakrsna does not mention Kapila by name. He uses the words parama rsi and muni to refer to him. This does not make Kapila a mythical feature. On the contrary, it indicates that Isvarakrsņa regarded him as a historical person commanding great respect. By making a specific reference to his philosophical

Prologue 15

contribution Isvarakrsna removes all suspicious about the historicity of Kapila. It would appear from the Samkhyakarika that the philosophy expounded by Kapila was basically concerned with the nature ofthe mysterious phenomena of life and death, the creation of the works and its dissolution, problems which are the starting point of philosophical investigation in any period and in any country. Basically, Samkhya, as expounded by Kapila, was an enquiry into the phenomena of creation, existence and dissolution. Isvarakrsna does not give details about the philosophical principles expounded by Kapila. The only point mentioned is that it was aknowledge of the concept of purusartha. This was the main thrust of Kapila's philosophy. It implies other connected principles, the principle of prakrti and of its functioning for the sake of purusa. We can speculate that the exposition possibly referred to the transformation or evolution of prakrti. Prakrti does so that purusa achieves ito liberation. A knowledge of the separateness of purusa and prakrti, of prakrti functioning for the sake of purusa, is the means to realise emancipation. Possibly Samkhya in this period was not identifies with an enumeration of a specific number of categories (tattvas or padarthas). Isvarakrsna does not refer to this characteristic of Samkhya in mentioning the Samkhya principles of Kapila. In referring to the exposition by Kapila the Samkhyakarika employs the expression samakhyatam. Considering the compact style of Isvarakrsna, for presenting in a summarised form the entire Samkhya philosophy, it seems that he was very careful in choosing words and expressions. Hence the expression anakhyatam could not have been without significance. There is some controversy about the original nature of Samkhya and the original meaning of the word samkhya. Some scholars derive the word samkhya from samkhya (number) on account of the system presenting its principles through a fixed number of tattvas or padarthas, or from parisamkhyana because it is characterised by an enumeration ofits principles. Some others derive the name samkhya from sam or

16 Retrieving Samkhya History samyak khyati or a proper exposition. Samkhya was so named because it presented its principles in a proper and reasonable manner. This type of controversy is not confined to modern scholars; even ancient and medieval authorities participated in it. In this context the use of the expression samakhyatam is meaningful. Isvarakrsna possibly used it deliberately to express his view about the original meaning of the term samkhya and the original nature of the Samkhya system. It may be suggested that according to Isvarakrsna, the presentation of the Samkhya principles by Kapila was not characterised by an enumeration of tattvas or categories. The only other information about Kapila, in the Samkhyakarika, is that he compassionately gave his system of philosophy to Asuri. We do not learn anything about the text composed by Kapila. Actually the Samkhyakarika is silent about the question whether Kapila composed a text or merely formulated his principles orally. Modern scholarship is seriously concerned about the name of the text written by Kapila. Some scholars ascribe the Tattvasamāsasūtra and the Samkhyapravacanasūtra to Kapila, though admitting that they have been revised by subsequent hands. In view of what Isvarakrsna says about the contribution made by Pancasikha, it may be surmised that Kapila presented his ideas orally and briefly, and if in the form of a text, then possibly in sūtras. Asuri The Samkhyakārikā (kārika 70) does not attribute any specific contribution to Asuri but even then mentions his name for receiving the Samkhya system from Kapila and passing it on to Pancasikha. This fact ordinarily will not be enough to merit a mention in a list ofonly three celebrated names. Asuri possibly made a more tangible contribution. We may suggest, on the basis of the reference in the Sämkhyakarika, that he reduced to writing the exposition which Kapila had communicated to him.

Pañcasikha Isvarakrsna assigns to Pañcasikha a place of high importance in

Prologue 17

the history of Samkhya next only to that of its founder Kapila. He says that Pancasikha expanded the doctrine. The commentators give different meanings to the line tena ca bahudha krtam tantram. Modern scholars are also not unanimous in interpreting this reference. Bahudha can be variously interpreted to mean modified, diversified, and expanded. Tantra, likewise, can mean a system or a book. In any case the line would refer to the elaboration and expansion of the Samkhya philosophy brought about by Pancasikha. It may signify that whereas Kapila and Asuri had presented a brief account, Pancasikha offered an elaborate treatment. But, possibly it was not a case of merely elaborating the original account. Pancasikha seems to have introduced a more vital change, without altering the original base. It was he who first presented Samkhya through sixty items. This possibly the meaning of the reference to his increasing or elaborating the tantra. This was a major change or improvement. There is evidence to indicate that in earlier stages of its history Samkhya was known as sasthitantra. Sasthitantra meant the presentation of Samkhya through an enumeration of ten mülikarthas and fifty pratyaya-sargas. It is quite reasonable to suggest that Pancasikha composed a text to present his account. The text also was possibly known as the Sasthitantra. It is not available, but numerous quotations in later works do not leave any doubt about it. The claim of Pancasikha for the authorship of the Sasthitantra is disputed by some modern scholara who plead in favour of Asuri. The question has been confused by evidence which attributes Sasthitantra to Varsaganya."If not mistaken, the reference would indicate that Varsaganya chose to name his own composition after the title of the great work written by Pancasikha. From references in the Moksadharmaparva of the Santiparva and quotations in later works it is clear that Pancasikha deeply influenced the history of Samkhya. But the Samkhyakarika does not give details about all his contributions. Isvarakrsna indicates

22 Infra chapter 17.

18 Retrieving Samkhya History that Pancasikha and his Sasthitantra represented the main line in the rich Samkhya tradition.

ADDITIONAL VIEW B.M. Barua (A History of Pre-Budhist Philosophy, pp.) in tracing the history of Samkhya relies on the evidance of the Samkhyakārika. In this text there are only four names associated with Samkhya: Kapila, Āsuri, Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna. Barua takes these four to represent four stages in the history of Samkhya. According to Barua, the first stage is represented by the Purusasukta in the Rgueda, the second by the Purusavidha Brahmana in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, the third by Pancasikha's views in the Santiparva and the fourth by Isvarakrsna's views in the Bhagavad Gitã. In restricting the history of Samkhya to the four names known from the Samkhyakarika, Barua ignores the contributions of other teachers of Samkhya. He confines himself to one particular line in Samkhya and thus does little justice to the rich and varied growth of Samkhya. He emphasises the earliest period to which belonged Kapila, Āsuri and Pancasikha and than jumps to Isvarakrsna. The long period of several centuries is not taken into consideration. Barua tacitly assumes the Vedic connections of Samkhya. He traces the history of Samkhya in the Vedic tradition and does not consider the possibility of an independent history ofits own. But the Sämkhya tradition does not claim such origins for itself. Barua's efforts to link the first two stages with the Vedic literature is conjectural and without any cogent reason. He attributes the first stage of the Purusasukta to Kapila. He argues that traditionally Narayana is taken to be the author of the Purusasukta and that Narayana stands for Kapila. To attribute the Purusaskta to Kapila is far-fetched. The Vedic tradition does not associate Kapila with this sūkta. The suggestion of Asuri being the author of the Purusavidha Brahmana in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad is completely conjectural. There is no evidence to confirm it.

Prologue 19

Methodology - Sources and Approaches UPANISADS AND ORIGIN OF SAMKHYA The non-availabality of authentic accounts of Samkhya in an early period has led scholars to indulge in scholarly speculations. There is an apparent contradiction in these studies. Whereas Samkhya is often described as being non-Vedic in its origin, efforts are made to trace elements of Samkhya in the Rksamhita, the Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. We find a strange misconception about the origin of Samkhya. Samkhya is treated as evolving out of these early references. Samkhya, thus, becomes a tabula rasa receiving impressions from diverse sources. But, Samkhya is not patchwork created by the scissor and paste method. It is not a mosaic assimilating diverse elements. It is not a caravan which is formed by people coming and joining it. This strangely implies that Samkhya did not have anything of its own. Samkhya history is thus, reconstructed by identifying elements in other sources. Samkhya is taken to have emerged only when sufficient details are found in these sources. Texts, which have only partial details, are explained as earlier phases leading to the final emergence of Samkhya. On the basis of references in the Upanisads scholars have determined the stages in the emergence of Samkhya. Thus, it is said that the first clear references to Samkhya ideas and terminology are found in the Katha Upanisad, composed in the fourth century nc, and that the Svetasvatara Upanisad, placed around the third century BC. represents a later stage of thought.2 But, this is a misconceived approach. It implies a wrong expectation from the Upanisads. The Upanisads are neither encyclopaedias or digests of philosophical views. They were not required to record the Samkhya principles in their fulness. If any principle or aspect of Samkhya is not mentioned in any particular Upanisad, it does not mean that it had not originated by that time.

23 Larson, Claxsical Samkhya, pp. 95-105

20 Retrieving Samkhya History The Upanisads have their own philosophical views to expound. They mention only those details which are compatible with their own ideas or are relevant to them," The Upanisadic evidence only indicates a lower limit for those principles. They had originated before these texts, but how much earlier is to be determined independently. SĀMKHYA SOURCES In delineating the history of Samkhya there has been a forced reliance on sources which do not belong to the Samkhya stream. These sources view Samkhya from their standpoint and in the light of their interest. They cannot be expected to be exhaustive in their account. Though they may be critical of the Samkhya principles, they possibly could not have a sympathetic understanding of them. As a matter of methodology the Samkhya principles are to be delineated primarily on the basis of sources belonging to the Samkhya tradition itself. The methodological approach has not been implemented on account of the non-availability of original Samkhya works written before the Samkhyakarika. But, there has been no serious effort to tap the available material, with all its limitations of form and style. There are indications that Samkhya had a rich literature in the earlier period. The evidence for attempts at standardisation and systematisation of Samkhya principles made several times is an admission of the vast and varied nature of Samkhya expositions. The Devaladharmasütra refers to serious and voluminous texts of Såmkhya which it summarised to present a systematic account. In this connection we would like to refer to two Samkhya texts - the Samkhyapravacanasutra and the Tattvasamasasutra. In their present form the texts are dismissed as later works with little value for the early history of Samkhya. But, it is admitted that, along with some portions of an evidently later period, they have much information which seems to refer to an early period. Some 24. See infra chapter 3.

Prologue 21

scholars attribute the texts to the earliest Samkhya dcaryas, Kapila or Pancasikha. Though the inscription may not find many supporters, the early elements in the texts are to be treced. A significant new source on Samkhya is the Devala- dharmasutra.25 U.V. Shastri had collected extracts from this text. But no effort has been made to analyse the passages and determine its importance for the history of Samkhya. Devala gives a systematic and complete account of Samkhya and helps identify some of the early stages in Samkhya history. Devala represents a stage when the two enunciations of Samkhya, in terms of sixty principles and twenty-five categories, circulated together. Devala described Samkhya through both the traditions, but, it seems that by his time the enunciation of twenty-five categories had gained precedence over the earlier tradition. Though Devala enumerates sixty principles, he does not refer to them as such. He mentions them in the form of fifty pratyaya-sargas and ten mûlikarthas. The Yuktidipika is a very useful document for the history of Samkhya. It is unique among the commentaries on the Samkhyakarika in mentioning earlier Samkhya celebrities and also recording some of their important views. These ācaryas, from the manner of their reference in the Yuktidipika, apparently preceded Isvarakrsna. But, there is no clear evidence to determine the dates of these acaryas and calculate the time-gap separating Isvarakrsna from them. Larson and Bhattacharya,25 who place Isvarakrşna in AD 350-450, describe Paurika, Pancādhikarana and Patañjali as the early acaryas and place them as also Varsaganya in the slab AD 100-300.17

BUDDHACARITA, CARAKASAMHITA AND MOKSADHARMAPARVA In reconstructing the history of Samkhya the evidence of three sources, the Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa, the Caraksamhita and

25 See infra chapter 12. 26 Samkhya, p. 13. 27 Ibid

22 Retrieving Samkhya History the Moksadharmaparva in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, has not been properly utilised. They are not specific works of Samkhya but contain useful material on Samkhya. Of these the Moksadharmaparva section has been analysed by many scholars, but the other two have been late in receiving attention and even now require a critical study. These texts have suffered from the domination of the Samkhyakarika as the standard work of Samkhya and the identification of its exposition as Samkhya. This naturally created a disinclination to treat any deviation from it as Samkhya. These accounts of Samkhya have been labelled as Proto-Samkhya. It has not been realised that the exposition of Samkhya could not remain fixed and static over long centuries. The elaboration and change in later times do not mean that earlier expositions were not Samkhya. The misconceptions about the date of these texts has stood in the way of a proper evaluation of the evidence supplied by them. By a strange coincidence all the three are located around the first century of the Christian era. There has been no attempt to scrutinise the internal evidence to find out the actual period to which their accounts look back. The Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa is datable, Being associated with the Kusana king Kaniska, Asvaghosa is generally placed in the first century of the Christian era. Asvaghosa is the author of the text, hence the views expressed in it are associated with him. But, generally it is not emphasised that in the text he attributes the presentation to Arada. Buddha, before his enlightenment, had approached Arāda for receiving knowledge. Arada, after expounding his principles, observed that similar views were held also by Jaigisavya, Janaka and Vrddha- Parăsara. Asvaghosa, thus, presented the principles of the system as advocated by Arāda, a pre-Buddha Samkhya teacher.28 A similar misconception has persisted about the date of the Carakasamhita. On the basis of a reference in the Chinese translation of Tripitaka to the court physician of Kaniska being

28. See infra chapter 7.

Prologue 23

named as Caraka, the text is dated in the first century. But the text, in its present form, was not composed at one date. According to the text, itself, it was revised twice. The original composition by Agnivesa was revised by Caraka; later Drdhabala restored chapters which had been lost. The chapters, containing accounts of Samkhya principles, are those associated with the names of Agnivesa and Caraka. It is very difficult to apportion chapters and passages to Agnivesa and Caraka. The very fact that the name of Agnivesa was retained even after the revision made by Caraka shows that the revised text preserved much of the original composition by Agnivesa. The present text evidently has much older material and also earlier style and expressions. Agnivesa records many views expressed by his teacher Ätraya. We have argued that Agnivesa and Caraka are to placed respectively around 800 sc and 500 BC. The encyclopedic Mahabharata is described by the tradition as having grown in three stages. Modern scholarship also believes that it has received its present form as a result of accretions over centuries. Winternitz proposed the rough time-bracket of fourth century Bc to fourth century AD for the text,2which was narrowed to 300-100 sc by Hopkins.30 Later researches have shown that by the first century of the Christian era the text had acquired its known form and size. The Santiparva is generally considered to have been among the latest portions inserted into its body. The evidence shows that the chapters in the Santiparva are generally to be dated before the first century. They belong to an earlier period and had been incorporated into the work before this date. But, by an inexplicable logic the latest date has been foisted on the Santiparva and its Moksadharmaparva section. Here also the internal evidence of the relevant chapters has not been looked into. Some of the chapters are introduced as itihasam puratanam. Evidently, their authors considered them to contain authentic, details of a known past. There are, no doubt, some chapters which have been given a mythological colour. But in others the historical core is evident. The

29. See infra chapter 6. 30 A History of Indian Literature, Vol. I, p. 465

24 Retrieving Samkhya History Samkhya acāryas are associated with historical personalities who can be identified and dated. Thus, according to the authors of the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva, the Samkhya accounts refer to known Samkhya dcaryas who belonged to a datable past. The accounts have been affected by the format and style of the authors/ compilers of the chapters. But that need not cast any doubt about the historicity of the Samkhya acaryas and the kernel of their expositions. Within the limitations of the presentation we have to recognise in them principles attributed to Samkhya acāryas of an earlier period. On account of their differences from the Samkhyakarika they need not be dubbed as proto-Samkhya. They were Samkhya expositions in a specific period and had their own distinguishing features. APPROACHES TO THE HISTORY OF SMKHYA Beginnings We want to emphasise that the general view, identifying Samkhya with a set, fixed and static exposition of principles, does not stand the scrutiny of the historical method. Samkhya has not been a monolithic system, nor has its development been unilinear. Long before the standardisation brought about by Isvarakrsna it had a rich literature and a wide variation of exposition of principles. This long period witnessed an interesting history ofchanges, vital shifts, elaboration and introduction of new details, and debates and difference of opinion. The history of Samkhya had its own course of development. In its growth it gained through new situations and the influence of other systems. But it would be wrong to view Sämkhya as the product of the piercing together of other elements or the result of the grafting of ideas received from time to time. Scholars have variously suggested Vedic, non-Vedic and tribal origins for Samkhya. In earlier times also philosophers were at pains pointing out Vedic and non-Vedic features of Samkhya in support of their own views about its origins. Samkhya arose in the Vedic circles, though it did not fully subscribe to the Vedic cult of sacrifices. Sacrifices have a limited efficiency. For freedom from duhkha and for emancipation the Vedic circle had a distinct class

Prologue 25

of thinkers. They were not anti-Vedic. They followed reason. They expounded their views in a well-reasoned manner. Their views circulated in their own closed circles and were not disseminated among the common people.

Early phase At this stage possibly several slightly differing views were circulating. It was Kapila who formulated an ordered system out of the mass of views. Kapila is said to have enunciated the esoteric knowledge of prakrti being for the sake of purusa (purusārtha-jnana) in which were contemplated the existence, creation and dissolution of the beings. Modern scholars often dismiss Kapila as a mythological figure. This is primarily due to the high veneration given to him in ancient texts. On account of the importance of his contributions posterity raised him to the position of a divine being. It is not possible to identify the text, if any, composed by Kapila. Asuri, the immediate successor of Kapila, remains a little known person. The very fact that in his very brief account of the early history of Samkhya, Isvarakrsna chose to include his name testifies to his historicity. His most significant role was in receiving the Samkhya principles from Kapila and transmitting them to Pancasikha. This would suggest that neither Kapila nor Āsuri put down their formulation in the form of a text. But, a later quotation from Asuri makes a case for Kapila and Asuri also having given a concrete shape to their exposition. Pancasikha is to be regarded as the first systematiser of Samkhya. Helaid down set principles for Samkhya as a philosophical system. He formulated Samkhya as consisting of sixty principles. In the Jain sources some early references indicate this nature of Samkhya. Pancasikha gave a detailed exposition of the Samkhya philosophy. He was possibly the first to offer a standard work on Samkhya. The Samkhya principles included ten mūlikarthas and fifty pratyaya-sargas. Quotations surviving in later texts indicate some of the important points made by him. Though the Samkhya- pravacanasūtra, in its present form, seems to contain later accretions

26 Retrieving Samkhya History as well, possibly in its original form it was close to the Samkhya system as laid down by Pancasikha.

Post-Paňcasikha phase It is difficult to trace the full history of Samkhya after Pancasikha. We have references to a number ofSamkhya scholars. Some ofthese are mere names. In some lists the mythological names are mixed up with historical ones. Establishing sequence in them remains a difficult problem. But some lists retain a distinctly historical appearance. Who among these äcaryas first formulated Samkhya philosophy in terms of twenty-five categories cannot be determined. The Samkhya tradition does not contain a specific reference. In course of time it was recognised as the most standard enunciation ofSamkhya philosophy. Later tradition, unmindful of the historical evolution of the Samkhya system, attributed the authorship of the twenty-fivecategories to Kapila, the founder, himself. The testimony of the Devaladharmasutra would indicate that formulation of Samkhya in terms of the twenty-five categories had occurred before this text. The post-Pancasikha period was very creative in the history of Samkhya. It was rich not only in the number of eminent acaryas. It was characterised by a wide variety of expositions in the details of the principles. The terminology had not been finally fixed. The number of categories was still being discussed. The dcaryas of the period are venerated as Samkhyavrddhas or Maulikya Samkhyas. The Carakasamhita mentions them. The Yuktidipika refers to some of them. The Buddhacarita mentions Arada of this phase. The Moksadharmaparva records the names of some of these and certain important features of their thought, though modified by the format of the chapters. This early phase can be roughly placed between 650 and 500 BC. Isvarakrsņa refers to two important features of the Samkhya literature of the earlier period - akhyayika and paravāda. Akhyayika refers to narrative. The accounts of Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva are often presented in the form of ancient

Prologue 27

narratives. We are not sure of there were other texts in this form. Isvarakrsna refers to these Samkhya narratives which he avoided in his exposition. Whatever be the date of the dcaryas represented in them, the composition of the chapters may be placed around 300- 200 BC. Paraváda refers to another important development in Samkhya history. Samkhya in establishing itself as a philosophical system, had to meet the criticism of other systems and to vindicate its own position. This was the period of elaboration of the exposition, of debates and discussion and of arguments in support of the principles. The phase acquired prominence through Varsaganya and gained force through his followers. Vindhyavasin was the foremost teacher of this tradition. We place this phase after 300 Bc. Some notable Samkhya views of this phase are noted in the writings of other philosophical systems as painstakingly ferretted out by E. Frauwallner and P. Hacker. The ascent of Samkhya on the philosophical horizon of India, from the colourful richness of the dawn to the shining brilliance of the meridian, is a fascinating travail. Isvarakrsna represents Samkhya at its zenith. He himself proclaims his allegiance to the tradition of sasthitantra. For this he names only Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha. Isvarakrsna has monopolised focal attention in Samkhya studies. For this reason we have not attempted a study of Isvarakrsna and post-Isvarakrsna developments. For the present we have not discussed the sasthitantra tradition of Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha. We have emphasised schools and dcaryas other than these, because their contributions are not duly studied in the history of Samkhya.

Approaches Before finally attempting the history of Samkhya and the development through stages covering all aspects of the system, including its dcaryas, texts and principles, we may approach the subject from different points. In the absence of requisite information about the nature of principles at different stages, we may resort to

28 Retrieving Samkhya History

an analysis of the contributions of various acaryas and the characteristic views of the schools. (a) Structure: The development can be traced in terms of a number of points. One possible manner is through the structure of the texts. From the Yuktidtpikd we learn that initially Samkhya was presented as Tantra. The Sasthitantra was possibly the earliest work. The Jain sources mention this name in referring to the early Samkhya system. The prestige accorded to Sasthitantra by Isvarakrsna is an admission of its being the earliest exposition. This is admitted by Frauwallner when he credits Varasaganya with the authorship of the Sasthitantra. Later we find the vogue for presenting Samkhya as Saptati. The Jain tradition mentions (Kanakasaptati) as an early title in the Samkhya system. We have suggested that it was the composition of Vārșaganya. Vasubandhu, in his attack on the Samkhya position, named his work as Paramarthasaptati. In his final exposition İsvarakrsna chose to have seventy verses (satpati), though naming it as kārikā. (b) Principles: Another approach can be in terms of the principles. In the absence of relevant details it is not possible to present a full account of the various stages in the development of principles. But certain important landmarks can be noted. Puruşārthata seems to have been an important principle expressed by Kapila. This was elaborated into the concept of ten mūlikarthas. Pancasikha, in expounding sixty principles (sasthitantra), mentioned both the ten mülikarthas and the fifty pratyaya-sargas. This was later replaced by the exposition in terms of categories. Twenty-five came to be accepted as the standard number. There was a period when varying numbers of categories were enumerated. We cannot be sure about the author of this system of exposition, but it had emerged before the composition of the Devaladharmasūtra. (c) Relationship with yoga: One significant point for delineating the history of Samkhya is its relationship with the allied system of Yoga. Depending on their views about the changes in the closeness and separation of the two, scholars have determined stages in the

Prologue 29

history of Samkhya. Larson and Battacharya, in their recent study, have designated the Yoga expounded in the Yogasutra of Patanjali as Patañjala Samkhya and have allocated a detailed treatment to it as a distinct exposition of Samkhya. The earliest period in the history of Samkhya and Yoga being shrouded in obscurity we cannot assert positively about the history of Samkhya in its correlationship with Yoga. Archaeological evidence suggests the curreney of Yoga in the Indus Valley civilisation. The speculative nature of Samkhya system is not expected to receive archaeological confirmation. Samkhya and Yoga are so much allied that they are considered to be twin systems, as two aspects of the same, Samkhya being the speculative basis of the practical Yoga. The two go together as supplimentaries. We cannot posulate that for the long current yoga practices Samkhya was evolved as a philosophical support at a later stage. Possibly the two coexisted but, because ofits very nature, Samkhya could receive expression later. Subsequently Samkhya and Yoga started developing in their own spheres. At this stage efforts were made to emphasise the unity of the two. In the Moksadharmaparva some Samkhya dcaryas are said to have expounded the two together and to have asserted that they are not separate and different. In the Buddhacarita also Arāda, a pre-Buddha Samkhyateacher, expounds Samkhya and Yoga as two methods of the same system. Thus, the post-Pañcasikha phase does not represent an effort to fuse two different systems. It asserted the oneness of the two allied systems, which were tending to develop independently. The Samkhya base of Yoga is evidenced from this early period. It need not be postponed to the period of the Yogasutra of Patanjali, which again need not be pushed to a date later than the Smkhyakarika. (d) Belief in god: Some scholars determine the stages in the history of Samkhya in terms of its belief in the existence of God or rejecting it.1 The sequence of transformation is presented differently. One formulation is that the originally atheistic Samkhya becomes theistic and finally settles down as atheistic. Another possibility 31. Epic Mythology, p. 1.

30 Retrieving Samkhya History

suggested is that Samkhya was theistic in the beginning, but later developed as atheistic. We suggest that there have been no such radical changes in the Samkhya position. The Samkhya view has been that God has no place in its philosophical scheme. But beyond the philosophical sphere it does not categorically dismiss the existence of god or gods.

(C) CHANGING MEANING OF SAMKHYA

Three usages of Samkhya

G.J. Larson and R.S. Battacharya take the term samkhya to mean 'relating to number, enumeration, or calculation'. According to them, there are three dimensions of the meaning in the word, which refer to corresponding three identifiable phases if its development. In the first phase, from the Vedic period to the beginning of the Christian era, Samkhya is one of the three traditions of anviksikt. The terms sämkhya, änvtksikt and tantra do not refer to philosophy in its usual sense they are "the first and groping attempts at systematic thinking, which proceeded by determining and enumerating the components ofanything". It "could, refer generally to any enumerated set of principles". In the second phase, from the period of the pre-Buddhistic Upanisads, (eighth or seventh centuries Bc) reaching into the first centuries of the Christian era, Samkhya is primarily a methodology for attaining salvation by knowledge. It allows for a great variety of philosophical formulations, but does not imply any system of metaphysical truth whatever. What Larson had described as Proto- Samkhya, in his first study, he now terms as Kapila-Pancasikha- Samkhya, Kapila-Pancasikha-Tantra, or Kapila Tantra. The third phase extends from about the last century Bc through the first several centuries of the Christian era. Now Samkhya becomes a technical philosophical system. The Karika comes at the end of this normative period of formulation, which is preceded by a pre-Karika phase. Frauwallner has shown the Samkhya epistemology of this phase. Hacker has reconstructed its ontology-cosmology.

Prologue 31

Larson and Bhattacharya proceed by assuming that the term Samkhya means enumeration or calculation. They do not pay attention to the fact that the term has other derivations, which lead to different meanings, nor do they demonstrate the change in its meaning in different phases. They have only indicated the change in the contents and scope of Samkhya, maintaining that in the later phases the original meaning of the term as enumeration or calculation persisted, though it received a changed expression: Without meaning to controvert the main thesis of phases in the development ofSämkhya, it may be pointed out that the persistence of the supposed original meaning of the term, through all the stages, is not evidenced. The changes in the nature of the principles expounded and the details of the contents do not by themselves imply that the term had undergone a parallel change in meaning. The fact is not to be assumed, it has to be proved. The meaning assigned to the term in the first stage does not stand closer scrutiny. It has been suggested that the three terms anuikşikt, samkhya and tantra have the same meaning. The terms are, no doubt, allied and have much in common in their approach and scope. But they are by no means synonymous. They have their specific nature and scope. Anviksiki is a wider term. Sāmkhya comes under the broad category of anviksikt. It is one of the constituent elements in anviksikl, Tantra signifies a system and also a composition expounding it. Samkhya is one of the earliest systems and was often designated as a Tantra. Some of the early Samkhya accounts were named as Tantras. The rules governing the presentation of the system in a Tantra were designated as tantra-yuhti. Very early we find the adoption of these rules by the Ayurvedic tradition and the Arthasastra. The Yuktidipika was written with the avowed purpose of demonstrating that the Samkhyakárika implements them. For determining the meaning of anvtksiki and samkhya the context in the Arthasastra is to be looked into. The terms occur in chapters 2 to 4 of the first book (adhikarana). These chapters (as prakarana 1) deal with subjects of knowledge or sciences (vidyd). Anuiksikt is one of the four vidyas, the other three being trayt, varta

32 Retrieving Samkhya History

and danda-niti. The four have their own approaches and objectives, but are also identified in terms of their contents, topics or subjects. Thus trayi (Vedic love) is defined as including the three Vedas, besides Atharvaveda and Itihasaveda and the Vedangas. Varta is ronstituted of krsi (agriculture), pasu-palana (cattle-rearing) and vânijya (trade). Ånutksiki is given a higher importance as the camp of all sciences, as the means of all actions, and as the support of all laws and duties. Änvikșiki can investigate, by means of reasoning (hatubhir avniksamana), the objectives in the other vidyas. To describe nviksiki as merely the first attempt at systematic thinking and Samkhya as one of its three traditions is not enough. Realising that the term philosophy has its own implications in the Western tradition, all of which may not be present in the case of India, we have to admit that, with all its distinctive features and limitations ānviksiki is to be taken to mean philosophy. It is clear from the reference to sämkhyam, yogah and lokayatam as constituting anvikski. These three are not more three traditions of anuksikt with their distinguishing approaches. If Samkhya is explained as the method of enumeration or calculation, we cannot find a comparable characteristic methodology referring to Lokayata. The Arthasastra itself does not give any indication to support the proposed meaning of Samkhya. The passage leads to the natural conclusion that here we have an early reference to the three earliest 'philosophical' systems in India. Samkhya and Yoga are generally recognised as such, and there is evidence to indicate it for Lokayata also. Without asserting anything about the nature and contents of principles, we interpret the Arthasastra evidence as an early recognition of Samkhya as one of the three main philosophical systems. In any case the Arthasastra does not confirm that in that period the term samkhya meant any system based on enumeration or calculation. Sämkhya as a system underwent changes in its nature, its objectives, emphasis and principles. The enumeration of categories became one ofits distinguishing features. But we cannot categorically assert that this was so in the initial stages. Possibly this feature was identified in course of time. In any case, evidence has not been

Prologue 33

adduced to show that the term samkhya witnessed changes in its derivation and meaning, matching the later phases in its growth culminating in a technical philosophical system.

Derivation From Samkhya The meaning of the term samkhya differs according to the explanation offered for the word samkhya, from which it is derived. This, in its turn, varies according to the interpretation offered for the two parts of the word samkhya, namely the prefix sam and the root khya. The differing explanations of the word samkh ya proposed by ancient authorities are reflected in the interpretations offered by modern scholars, R. Garbe, H. Oldenberg, H. Jacobi and M. Eliade, Edgerton1 holds that in older texts Samkhya is not a technical designation for a particular system of thought; it signifies its derivative meaning of the method 'based on reason, ratiocination', it is the rationalising, reflective, speculative, philosophical method. He takes it to refer to the method of gaining salvation by 'knowledge. The most significant question in this connection is, which of the various meanings of the term samkhya is the original and the earliest. Are we to suppose that the term primarily referred to the idea of number of enumeration and hence stood for those which communicated their principles through an enumeration of categories? Or are we to suggest that it signified a rationalising philosophical system or a method of attaining salvation by knowledge? It may be incidentally pointed out that, when Isvarakrsna refers to the history of the Samkhya principles, he used the expression samakhyatam (expounded) for the presentation of 'this secret knowledge (guhya) of other elements being for the sake of puruşa' (puruşartha-jñana) by the greatest sage Kapila.1 We may suggest that the use of the expression samakhyatam is not causal. Possibly, Isvarakrsna, in referring to the original formulation of the Samkhya principles, deliberately chose it to indicate the original meaning of the term samkhya. 32 See infra chapter 16. 33. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, ed. by K. Potter, Vol IV- Samkhya, pp. 3-14.

34 Retrieving Samkhya History

Samkhya Meaning Reasoning

The name Samkhya can be derived from samkhya but not in the sense of number. The Amarakosa" paraphrases samkhya to mean discussion and investigation. This usage is confirmed by the Amarakosa,"5 when later it gives samkhyavan as one of the synonyms of vidvān.

Raghunatha Tarkavagisa (nineteenth century)35 seems to have followed Amara when he explains samkhya, from which samkhya is derived, as meaning consideration (vicara). Srīdharasvāmi and Süryapandita17 paraphrase samkhyd to mean right (samyak) knowledge. Devatirthasvāmin (1772-1852) elaborates samyak as meaning 'enunciation in an order' or 'consideration in an orderly manner'.38

It would be pertinent to find out if this usage has the sanction of a reference in an early text, In the Arthasastra3 of Kautilya as we have seen, both Samkhya and Yoga, along with Lokayata are mentioned as being the discipline (vidya) of anviksiki. Anviksiki is interpreted as meaning logic or metahysics. The rational approach characterising it is implied in the root iksa 'to see', from which it is formed. R.P. Kangle translates anviksiki as philosophy. P. Chakravarti justifiably explains it as 'the system which tries to establish the validity of its tenets by the process of logical reasonings'.40 The Arthasastra makes the approach of anviksikt

34. Beginnings of Indian Philosophy, pp. 35-7. 35. Samkhyakārika, 69. 36 1.5.2 - carcá samkhya vicaraná l 37. I1.7.5- viduan. .. samkhyavan panditah kavih 1 38 Samkhyatattuavilasa - pańcavimsatitatvanam samkhyd vicdrah l tamadhikrtya krto granthah samkhya iti samkhyapadavyutpattih samgacchate \ 39 Sridharasvamin (Sudodhint on Gita) and Suryapandita (Paramārthaprapa) - sāmkhya samyag jnanam 40. Samkhyataranga - samyak kramapūrakam khyānam kathanam yasyam as samkhya kramapūrvā vicārana, yat tāmadhikrtya krtam tasmat sāmkhyamityucyate sastram I

Prologue 35

clear by observing that by investigation (anviksamana) by means of reasoning (hetu) the relative strength and weakness of the other three sciences, it confers benefit on the people, keeps the mind steady in adversity and in prosperity and brings about proficiency in thought, speech and action. It is described as the lamp (pradtpa) of all sciences."1 This is quite in line with the testimony of chapter 320 in the Śantiparva of the Mahabharata. The chapter, which is in the form of an interlocution between Sulabha and Janaka, contains an exposition of Samkhya principles. It is significant that here the term sämkhya is used not in the sense of a system of philosophy, it signifies one of the five meaningful characteristics of a sentence,4 It is defined as the enunciation of the defects and merits by proper analysis with a view to establishing a particular meaning.4 The Yuktidipika commentary on the Samkhyakarika brings out the characteristic of Samkhya in establishing its view with the help of reasoning. It compares Samkhya to an elephant, who roams in the forest of paksata (subjectness) and has the vita (positive) and avita (negative) forms of inference as its tasks, and for it the pravdas (points of disputes) are perishable like the cluster of sallaki trees." Pakşatā or pakșadharmata is called the pratijnā (thesis) in the five-membered syllogism. It is what is to be proved by means of inference. Itis the psychological condition ofinference, the absence of uncertainty and a desire to know. This shows that the method of reasoning was considered to be the distinguishing feature of Samkhya. P. Chakravarti5 is of the view that at the time of the composition of the Brahmasutra

41. 1.2.10- samkhyam soga lokayatam cetyanutksikt 1 42 Origin and Development of Samkhya System of Thought, p. 41 43. 1.2.11-12 44 XII.320.79 - sauksmyam samkhyakramau cobhau nirnayah saprayojanah I parcaitanyarthajnđnm vakyamityucyate nrpa l 45 XII.320.82- dosāņām ca guņānām ca pramănam pravibhagatah ) kamcidarthamabhipretya så samkhyetyupadharyatam I

36 Retrieving Samkhya History Samkhya was'famous for its rationalism'. He bases this view on the fact that the Brahmasutra 'which is always very keen to refute the doctrine of Samkhya speaks of the prakrti as the anumana or anumánika (lit. based upon inference).16

Sāmkhya as Spiritual Discipline - Parisamkhyāna In earlier times Samkhya does not seem to signify a system of philosophy with twenty-four or twenty-five categories. In the absence of clear statements about the meaning of the term Samkhya in those times and the characteristic principles to which it subscribed, we can have only vague ideas about its connotation. There are indications that the term samkhya was used to signify spiritual discipline. According to the Suetasvatara Upanisad47 one achieves the supreme reality through Samkhya and Yoga. It is significant that in the Mahabharata Drona, before breathing his last is said to have been established in supreme Samkhya. An early definition of Samkhya, recorded in the Vyasasmrti,49 describes it as the knowledge of the principle of true self (suddhatmattva-vijnana). The traditions in the Yoga school use the term parasamkhyana in the sense of supreme knowledge. This usage is found in the Yogasutra50 of Patanjali and is maintained in the Yoga-sütra-bhasya of Vyāsa. The Yogasutra says that a yogi, who even after acquiring parisamkhyana does not desire to possess its results (akusida) and receives the discerning knowledge (viveka- khyati), reaches the concentration (samadhi)named Dharmamegha. The use of the form parisamkhyana for higher level of knowledge in Yoga, an allied system of Samkhya, is significant. Further, in the sütra we find that the term khyati (having the same derivative meaning as samkhya, sâmkhyana and samkhya) is used to refer to

46. ultdultavisanasya paksatavanasevinah 1 pravadah samkhyakarinah šallakisandabhangurak i 47. Op. cit., p. 41. 48. 11.18: 1.3.3; 1.4.1; 11.21 49. VI.13. 50 VII.192.49-drono'pi sastranyatsrrya paramam samkhyamasthitah )

Prologue 37

the knowledge of the yogi possessing parisamkhyana The technical usage of the terms parisamkhyana and khyati in Yogasütra supports the interpretation of Samkhya originally as reasoned knowledge. Vyasa, in his commentary,31 brings out this meaning of parisamkhyana. He refers to those who see the defects of objects (visaya-dosa) using prasamkhyana, to the afflictions (klesa) being reduced by the fire of prasamkhyana, to the contemplation (dhyana) of prasamkhyana and to the seeds of afflictions (klesa) being burnt by prasamkhyana. The use of prasamkhyana in Yoga is significant, because a verse in the Mahabharata32 unequivocally describes Samkhya-darsana as parisamkhyāna-darsana. This usage of prasamkhyana is also found in the Ahirbudhnya- samhita of the Pancaratra sect. In it Kapila is said to bestow the divine highest siddhi (spiritual power) full of prasamkhyana, which will have to be explained as referring to the exposition of knowledge. Another passage in the same text says that the sastra, which Kapila proclaimed, became the Samkhya sastra devoted to prasamkhyāna.54

51. Sankara's Commentary on Visnusahasranama quoted by Hall, Samkhyasara, p. 5 - suddhatmatattvavijnanam samkhya- mityabhidhiyate iti vyasasmrteh | Sridharasvămi (Subodhini on Gitā 11.39) followed by Süryapandita (Paramärtha-prapa) seem to have adopted it - sāmkhya samyag jñānam | tasmin prakasamanam (prakasyam by Süryapandita) atmatatvam samkhyam H 52. IV 29 - prasamkhyane'pyakustdasya sarvatha vivekakhyater. dharmameghah samadhih ! 53. I.15 - visayadoşadarsinah prasamkhyanabalat vairāgyam i II.2 -prasamkhyānāgninā pratanūkrtān klesān l Il 11 - prasamkhyānena dhyānana hatavyah ) II.13-prasamkhydnadagdhaklesabijabhavah l 54. XII.306.42 - samkhyadarsanametāvat parisamkhyana-darsanam l Suryanarayan Sastri (Samkhyakarika, Introduction, p. 9) confuses the significance of the passage by interpreting parisamkhyana as meaning abandonment. The interpretation, as remarked by L.D. Barnett (Review in JRAS, 1931) is not at all convincing and is without any support

38 Retrieving Samkhya History

The term Samkhya in Caraka-samhita

The Caraka-samhita provides an interesting support for our suggestion that Samkhya acquired its name because it was originally a system of reasoned exposition of knowledge. In one verse55 there is a clear reference to Samkhya as a system of philosophy, because it mentions Yoga also. Here the Samkhyas are described as samkhyata-dharmas. Samkhyata means'expounded well'it cannot signify 'enumerated', because there is no question of an enumeration of dharma.56 The interpretation of samkhyata as derived from samkhya in the sense of reasoned exposition is confirmed by another verse in the Caraka-samhita."7 Here Samkhya does not stand for Samkhya thinkers, but for experts of Ayurveda, who are thus described as 'having good knowledge'. The Samkhyas are mentioned as samkhata-samkhyeyas, which is to be interpreted as those who have well expounded subjects which are to be expounded well. Clearly all these three terms samkhya, samkhyata and samkyeya can be explained by taking the basic term samkhya to mean exposition. This is significant because Caraka seems to be well acquainted with the Samkhya system,58

Sāmkhya and Khyāti All doubts about the derivation of the term Samkhya and its original meaning are set at rest by a sūtra quoted by Vyāsa in his Yogabhaşya.5º It says that there is only one darsana, khyati alone

55. 56.31 - siddhim dadati yo divyām prasamkhyānamayim parām I devah siddhipradarnena kapilah sa nigadyate 11 56. XI.58 - tataksa kapilah sastradyavadamsamudāradhth I tatsämkhyamabhavacchastram prasamkhyanaparayanam Il 57 Sarira, 1.150 - ayanam punarakhyatametad yogasya yogıbhih samkhyatadharmaih samkhyaisea muktairmoksasya cayanam 1 58 In the first line of the verse the word akhydta is used to mean 'described' or 'designated', which supports the interpretation of samkhyata offered by us 59 Sütra XIII.3 - samkhyaih samkhyatasamkhyeyaih sahasinam punarvasum l jagaddhitartham papraccha vahnivesah svasamsayam I

Prologue 39

is the darsana. Here the expression is khyati and not samkhyati or samkhya. Khyati means exposition. It shows that in samkhya the root is khya with the upasarga sam prefixed to it to indicate 'proper (samyak), The term samkhya hence originally was not derived from samkhya meaning number.

Changes in the Derivative Meaning of Samkhya A passage in the Mahabharata® seems to represent a stage of transition in the meaning of the term samkhya from its original usage to the new one imposed on it. Here both the meanings are mixed up. Samkhya refers to reasoned exposition, but there is a reference to the number of the tattoas. The passage says that reasoned exposition (samkhya) is done and prakrti is expounded and the tattvas are said to be twenty-four. Hence the expounders are described as Samkhyas. The dual usages of Samkhya is repeated in another passage of the Mahabharata.6' It describes Samkhya as the darsana of parisamkhyana. The reasoned exposition is done and prakrti is described and twenty-four tattvas also for a proper exposition (parasamkhyaya) according to the tattvas; the Samkhya philosophers (samkhyah) mention along with prakrti the nistattva (or purusa) as the twenty-fifth. The parallels in the expressions in the two passages indicate that they look back to a common source. On account of the irregular expressions in the verses, which possibly could not be touched by the compiler, the true significance of the original meaning of Samkhya, as expressed in parisamkhyāna and parisamkhya, is not properly communicated by the expression samkhyā. In the Bhagavata Purana6 we find the expression tattuanam samkhyata. This can be explained either way, to the exposition of the tattvas and to the enumeration of the tattvas. Vallabhacarya, in his commentary, maintains the ambiguity and does not commit 60 See infra chapter 6. 61 I.A-tatha ca sütram ekameva darsanam khydtireva darsanam IAlso Yuktidipikā on Sâmkhyakārikā (p. 41). 62 XII.31.12 - samkhyam prakurvate caiva prakrtim ca pracaksate ! tattvani ca caturvimsat tena samkhyah praktrtitah H

40 Retrieving Samkhya History

himself to any of the two. He refers to the background of the uncertainty about the tattuas (tattvanam sandigdhatvat) and paraphrases tattvasamkhyāta as tattvasamkhyāna-karttā; but substituting sāmkhyata by samkhyanakartta does not help the matter, because the verb samkhyd and its derivative noun sämkhyana can have either of the two explanations. Possibly even after the Samkhya had acquired its characteristic feature of enumeration of twenty-five tattvas, its original nature as expounding reasoned knowledge persisted. It is only Śridharasvami, in his commentary on the Bhāgavata Purana passage, who makes an unambiguous assertion that samkhyata means one who counts or enumerates (ganaka).51 Grammatically the term samkhya can be derived from samkhya meaning number. Patanjali64 uses samkhya to mean something pertaining to number. He does it so only to illustrate the grammatical rule. There is absolutely no indication that Samkhya here refers to a philosophical system.

An Ignorant Explanation

Gunaratna's commentary on the Saddarsana-samuccaya65 gives a strange explanation of the name Samkhya. Relying on an ancient tradition (urddhamnaya), it says that the Samkhya system was also known as Samkhya. According to Gunaratna, there was in early times a man of special qualities, named as Sankha. His descendants, his grandsons and others were designated as sämkhyäh by suffixing yan pratyaya. The system propounded by them is known as sämkhya or samkhya. Gunaratna's assertion is not valid. 63. XII 306.42-3-samkhyadarsanametavad parisamkhyanadarzanam l samkhyah prakurvate caiva prakrtim ca pracaksate 1 tattuani ca caturvimsat parisamkhyaya tattuatah 1 samkhyah saha prakrtyā tu nistatvapamcavimšaka 1 Samkhyah in v. 42 is a mistake for samkhyam. 64 III.24.36 - etanme janma loke'smin mumuksanam duraxayat 1 prasamkhyānāya tattvānām sammatāyātmadarsane || See also III.25.1. 65. tattvanam samkhyata ganakah samkhyapravartaka ityarthah t

Prologue 41

We have no evidence about the system being designated as Samkhya. In all the sources it is always named as Samkhya. In the unnamed source, relied upon by Gunaratna, the name of the original founder of the system is not given. It is attributed to an anonymous descendant of Sankha. Gunaratna does not give any specific, detail, which may help his identification, except saying that he was an eminent man Gunaratna's statement indicates that in later times, when the Jain scholar did not have any access to the Samkhya as a living system, he could not make himself believe either the then current view that Samkhya is so termed because it enumerates the tattvas or the other explanation that it is so named because it was based on reasoned exposition, and hence imagined this fanciful explanation. This apparently indicatess his ignorance and is not based on an authentic earlier tradition.

Conclusion Thus, we see that the original meaning of the term samkhya was a reasoned exposition. This usage persisted in later times, even when an alternative derivation from samkhyd in the sense of number had been coined. Originally Samkhya did not refer to any system of philosophy. It meant philosophy in general. All sorts of philosophical speculations were covered by the term. There was no distinguishing feature of the contents of these speculations, except that they were rationally considered, as contrasted with the way of rituals and sacrifices. It ran parallel to the sacrificial system, which was the predominant form of religious activity of the Vedic people. There are reasons to believe that this way of knowledge was esoteric in nature confined to its own circle. We do not know anything definite about the nature and composition of this group. We can, likewise, only guess the reasons for keeping their views secret. It is quite likely that such people were limited in number. Considering the general prevalence of the system of sacrifices, they could not dare to make public their differing approach. They possibly followed the sacrificial system, but secretly cultivated

42 Retrieving Samkhya History

their ideas based on a rational exposition of things. It can be imagined that the group could not remain undetected for long, even though their characteristic ideas could not gain much public pronouncement. In the Vedic literature we find reference to two types of ascetics, the yatis and the munis; differentiated from the rsis or Vedic sages. Some scholars identify them as representing the Sramana stream The antiquity of the Sramana tradition and its various mani- festations and their significant contributions to Indian thought and culture are now generally admitted. The Samkhya tradition, committed to speculations and reasoned expositions, was associated with the Sramanas. There is an indication that in between the two stages of Samkhya derivatively signifying reasoned exposition and its subsequent transformation into a philosophical system there was an intermediate stage when it was used as the term for philosophy in general. A sūtra noted by us earlier, is ascribed by Vacaspatimisra6 to Pancasikha. It says that there is only one darsana; khyati alone is darsana. It seems that Samkhya became a synonym for darsana. Samkhya meant philosophy. Later, it was recognised as the only philosophy. Thus, Samkhya from siginifying philosophy, came to stand for the philosophy. Possibly there were some other expositions also. If the ascription of the sūtra to Pancasikha is accepted,57 it will indicate that Samkhya was recognised as the pre-eminent philosophy.

66. Mahabhasya on 11.2.24. Under Vartika 8 - laingah samkhyasca vidhayo nihsidhyanti Under Vartika 9- sämkhyesvapyuktam karmadinamanuktva ekatuādaya iti krtva samkhya bhavisyanti I 67. p. 22 - yadva tālavyādirapi samkhyadhvanirastiti urddhāmnāyah tatra samkhnnama kascidadyah puruşavisesastasyapatyam pautradiriti gargaditvat yanpratyaye sāmkhyastesāmidam sämkhyam såmkhyam va 1I

2

Sāmkhya and Vedic Tradition

Introduction

G.J. LARSON, in his classic work Classical Samkhya, makes a very judicious and balanced analysis of Samkhya philosophy, making a proper use of earlier studies of the subject. He favours the view that "Samkhya is a derivative and composite system, a product of a wide variety of contexts, both orthodox and heterodox." It is a very reasonable statement. History shows that ideas and institutions have often a composite origin and that their subsequent history is not a unilinear development. They grow and change according to new situations and forces, assimilating some and modifying in reaction to others. He would always like to identify the contributing sources and determine the elements issuing from them, both at the time of the original formulation and later growth. In any case the nature of formulation in the earlier stages has always a distinguishing significance.

Samkhya Speculation in Vedic Literature Larson identifies six traditions of speculations in ancient texts which were important in the formation of the Samkhya. They are of a mixed nature, including both orthodox and heterodox elements. Of these, five traced in ancient Vedic speculation are: (a) mythological and cosmological passages exphasising order and chaos, sat and

1. Second edition, 1979, p. 95

44 Retrieving Samkhya History

asat, etc., (b) cosmological speculations emphasising a tripartite creation in which the creative force or principle enters into the creation as the first-born, (c) speculations concerning purusa as the primal sacrifice and emphasising purusa as the essence or reason for the emergence of the world and of man, (d) speculations concerning the Self(atman) as the radical foundation of subjectivity and consciousness, and (e) passages which set forth various kinds ofenumeration some of which contain many taltvas oflater Samkhya. Larson identifies one such speculation in the non-Vedic doctrines of Jainism and Buddhism, e.g., kaivalya and duhkha. The preponderance of speculations appearing in Vedic texts is a clear indication of Larson favouring a Vedic origin for Samkhya. He himself makes it clear when he remarks that the carrying over into Samkhya of some notions of Buddhism or Jainism do not imply that 'Samkhya, arose in some ancient, non-Vedic tradition'. A number of scholars have traced Samkhya concepts and terms in Vedic literature. They identify passages in the various Upanisads, even the early ones. Some have pointed out references in the Brähmanas as well and find a few passages in the Rgueda itself. There are differences in details of the interpretation, which, in some cases, go to the extent of totally negating the view of one scholar about a certain passage. Thus, opinion may differ about the number of such passages and the actual meaning given to them. But scholars generally agree in identifying elements of Samkhya in early Vedic literature beginning with the Rgueda and coming down to the Upanisads, though, leaving aside some later Upanisads, none of these passages make an avowed reference to the Samkhya system. On the basis of such references many scholars have proclaimed the origin of the Samkhya from Brahmanical or Vedic tradition. Joseph Dahlman takes the original form of Samkhya as represented in the philosophical portions of the Mahabharata to be theistic and a natural outgrowth of the speculation found in the Brahmanas and early Upanisads.2 Paul Oltramare restricts the

2. Die Samkhya Philosophie ala Naturlehre und Erlosungslehre, pp. 1-19.

Samkhya and Vedic Tradition 45

Vedic context of the Samkhya to the ancient Upanisads.2 Hermann Oldenberg does not differ from this view, when he infers that the Samkhya 'has developed in a direct line out of the Brahman-atman speculation of the old Upanisads'. A.B. Keith is convinced about the origin of the Samkhya being within the orthodox Vedic framework. He subjects the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanisads to a detailed and in-depth analysis5 and traces a number of key concepts of Samkhya in the Vedic literature. According to him, Sämkhya is most natural derivation, albeit illogical and absurd, of the early speculations in the Vedic literature, but no Upanisad gives the full classical system of the Samkhya, because it had not received its final form in that period.6 Franklin Edgerton holds a similar view about the Vedic connection of Samkhya. According to him, the ancient Samkhya was a method of salvation by knowing and it grew out of the speculations in the Vedas and Upanisads.7 S.N. Dasgupta is also sure about the Samkhya deriving its major ideas and terms from the Vedic-Upanisadictradition. E.H.Johnston also investigates the Brahmanas and the Upanisads and infers that Samkhya is rooted in the speculations of the Brahmanas and the oldest Upanisads about the constitution of the individual and that its formulation took place in the interval between the oldest group of Upanisads and those of the middle group." P. Chakravarti has also attempted a critical study of the Samkhya elements in the Vedic literature. His treatment of the Upanisadic evidence in more definitive in interpreting the passages as containing Samkhya

L'Histoire des Idées Theosophique dans l'Inde, Tome Premier, p. 222. 4 Zur Geschichte der Samkhya - Philosophie", Nachrichten von der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Götingen, Jahre, 1917, p. 248. 5 The Religion and Philosophy of the Veda and Upanisads, Vol. 2, pp. 489-551. 6 The Samkhya System, pp. 6-23. 7 The Meaning of Samkhya and Yoga", American Journal of Philosophy, XLV, L, No. 177 (1924), pp. 1-46 8. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 211, 9 Early Samkhya, pp. 18-21.

46 Retrieving Samkhya History

terms and principles.10 A.P. Mishra scrutinises the ancient as well as modern views about Samkhya elements in the Upanisads and concludes that the original (maulika) Samkhya emerged in the period between the very old and the less old Upanisdads.1 The opinion of G.J. Larson is clear from the division of the chapter on 'historical development'. Under 'ancient speculations' he discusses Veda and the oldest Upanisads and in the second phase of proto-Samkhya speculations he places Katha, Śvetasvatara, Maitri and later Upanisads. He is of the view that though the Vedic texts do not confirm the Samkhya system or clear Samkhya terminology, they do indicate doctrines and trends which'may have later been assimilated into Samkhya'. According to him, the Rgveda and the Atharvaveda contain passages relevant to the Samkhya view of creation, evolution, etc., and the Brahmanas and earliest Upanisads have passages bearing on Samkhya views on self, knowledge and salvation. Thus, we can classify the views of scholars about the connection between Samkhya and Vedic tradition broadly into three: (a) those which trace Samkhya ideas and terms in the Upanisads, (b) those which trace ideas and terms which led to the formulation of Samkhya system, and (c) those which hold that the Vedic texts have passages with ideas similar to those of the early Samkhya system, but not of the standard form of Samkhya found in the Sāmkhyakārika.

Samkhya Non-Vedic in Origin and Character Those, who subscribe to the view that Samkhya had a non-Vedie origin and character, start with the assumption that Samkhya as a system is characterised by features recorded in the Samkhyakārika, without realising that Samkhya has a rich history in which its early forms reveal significant variations. These scholars take Samkhya to be characterised by purusa-prakrti dualism, plurality ofpurusas, evolution from a material cause (prakrti) and atheism. All these

10. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought 11. Samkhya Darsana ki Aitihasika Parampard, pp. 20-40.

Samkhya and Vedie Tradition 47

features are in total opposition to the idealistic monism of the Upanisads and hence some scholars find it hard to visualise a Vedic origin for Samkhya and propose alternative origins.

VRĀTYA ORIGIN J.W. Hauer traces the origin of Samkhya ultimately to the Vratyas. The Yoga originated with the Vratyas and Samkhya was a later development of Yoga. The Vratyas were different from the Brahmanical priesthood. They formed part of the first-wave of Aryans, possibly going back to Indo-Iranian or Indo-Germanic times. Hauer relies on the Atharvaveda for the views and practices of the Vratyas. There is no sound argument for describing Samkhya as a development from the folds of Yoga. Even in the case of Yoga the characteristic practices of the Vratyas are known to occur in some Brahmanical sources also, suggesting that they were assimilated early in the Brahmanical tradition.

KSATRIYA ORIGIN

Arguing on the basis of the absence of the distinguishing ideas of standardised Sāmkhya in the Brähmanas and Āranyakas, Richard Garbe postulates a non-Brähmanical origin for Samkhya. According to him, Samkhya arose in kşatriya circles.12 In another context Garbe describes Samkhya as a reaction against the idealistic monism ofthe Upanisads.13There is a clear incompatibility between the two views. Many earlier scholars forcefully argued for describing Upanisads as a product of the ksatriya tradition. If Samkhya had a ksatriya origin, how could it originate as a reaction to the Upanisads, which were also of ksatriya origin. Garbe's arguments for taking Samkhya to be a kşatriya philosophy are: (a) The Bhagavata Puraņa describes Kapila as descended from a rājarşi, (b) Sanatkumāra, a Samkhya teacher, is connected with the ksatriyas, and (c) The Moksadharma (Santiparava, Mahabharata) mentions five traditions, Vedic,

12. Die Samkhya Philosophy, pp. 12-27. 13. Encyelopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. XI, p. 189

48 Retrieving Samkhya History

Samkhya, Yoga, Pancaratra and Pasupata, suggesting that Samkhya was different from the Vedic tradition. The theory of a dichotomy between the brahmana and ksatriya traditions of thought, fashionable with earlier Western Indologists, was misconceived and is no longer accepted. Kapila cannot be described as a ksatriya. On the Bhagavata Purana evidence itself, as the son of Kardama, he is to be treated as a brahmana. The instance of Sanatkumāra also does not make Sāmkhya a kşatriya philosophy. There is a long list of Samkhya teachers, but most of them are not ksatriyas. Sanatkumara was neither the most important nor the earliest among Samkhya philosophers. The Sämkhya tradition and writings do not give much importance to Sanatkumara and his views. Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha are the earliest three Samkhya philosophers, but none of them is known as a ksatriya. The third argument of Garbe does not show that the Vedic tradition was opposed to the Samkhya. The Mahabharata passage lists five traditions which were respected at that time. They did have their own distinct form but were not necessarily antagonistic to one another. Actually all the five co-existed as equally respected in the Brahmanical circle. Garbe's second view of Samkhya originating as a reaction to the Upanisads has been opposed by Suryanarayan Sastri who says that this view ignores both, the diversified character of the Upanisadic teaching and the history of the Samkhya doctrine itself, which in its pre-classical stages seems to have had considerable affinities with Upanisadie doctrine."

ANTI-VEDIC FOLK ORIGIN

Here we may refer to the views of Debiprased Chattopadhyaya about the origins of Samkhya and its contacts with the Brahmanical

14. Samkhyakdrika, Introduction, p. 1, A.P. Miahra, op. cit., pp. 10-12, objects to Samkhya in pre-Classical age being described as having affinities with Upanisadic thought, obviously because he identifies Samkhya with its later form in the Samkhyakarikd and ignores texts and passages giving an account of early Samkhya.

Sämkhya and Vedic Tradition 49

tradition. Chattopadhyaya emphasises popular folk traditions as against priestly elite traditions. He dismisses Samkhya in the Samkhyakarika as being anti-Vedic and without any claim to represent the orthodox tradition. He trace Samkhya to the archaic agricultural-matriarchal traditions of mother-right which were pre-Vedic. Samkhya originally was a philosophy of monistic materialism of pradhāna-kāranavāda. Iśvarakrsna attempted its syncretism with the pastoral patriarchal tradition of male dominance represented by Vedanta idealism and thus created dualism which came to characterise later Samkhya.15 This refreshingly new materialistic interpretation is valuable. But, it assumes on the basis of anthropology the very facts for which we would like to have evidence and arguments. Chattopadhyaya does not adduce any evidence in support of an archaic agricultural matriarchal tradition and of the emergence of Samkhya from it. There is no support for it either in the Samkhya texts or traditions opposed to Samkhya. Chattopadhyaya's formulation is highly speculative. Its oversimplification may appear interesting and appealing, but has no factual, historical or philosophical support. As remarked by Larson, it is "clearly an oversimplification that reflects Chattopadhyaya's political ideology more than it does India's ancient cultural heritage".15 Our analysis of the Samkhya elements in the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanisads, in the light of the evidence about its nature in the early stages of the formulation of Samkhya and also its subsequent transformation and development, provides a historical perspective to our study of the correlation between Samkhya and Vedic tradition. By indicating the Vedic background it serves as a corrective to views, expressed under pre-conceived notions and partisan stands, which may have emerged in ancient times.

15 Lokayata, pp. 383-458. 16 Op.cit.,p.65, Larson points out that by his methodology Chattopadhyaya has reversed the Marxist perspective of interpreting 'Social reality with its economic infrastructure' and instead interprets Indian cultural history as 'an on-going conflict on the idealogical level' between Samkhya materialism and Vedanta idealism.

50 Retrieving Samkhya History By no means less important are three aspects which are to be investigated: the prestige enjoyed by Samkhya in the circles of the orthodox Brahmanical tradition, the criticism of Samkhya by orthodox thinkers, and Samkhya attitude towards Vedas and other sacred elements in the orthodox tradition.

Sāmkhya in Authoritative Brahmanical Texts A.P. Mishra" has pointed out that authoritative texts of the Brahmanical tradition, the Mahabharata, Gita, Ramāyana, Smrtis and Puranas, extol the Samkhya system for its excellence and superior merit. The Bhagavata Purana1 says that one, who listens to the atmayoga of Kapila, attains the feet of the bhagavan. In this Purana bhagavan Kapila tells his mother that one, who listens with faith to the Samkhya principles even once or recites it to another person, achieves His position.19 The Mahabharata is replete with passages glorifying. Samkhya as a philosophical system for achieving the summum bonum. At one place it is said that the knowledge gained from Samkhya is great (mahat).2 Another passage unequivocally says that there is no knowledge equal to Samkhya.21 The best testimony to the high regard for Samkhya is provided by the Gita. Its teachings are clearly surcharged with Samkhya principles.1 Śankara, the Advaita Vedāntist, is an avowed critic of Sāmkhya philosophy, but he himself testifies to the high position enjoyed by Samkhya in the orthodox circles. In prefacing his criticism of Samkhya, he mentions the reasons for giving primacy to the controverting of Samkhya texts. He says that Samkhya and Yoga are well known in the world as the means for attaining the highest goal; they are accepted by the cultured people, and are glorified by

17. Lokayata, pp. 8-14 18. III.33.37. 19. III.32.43. 20. XII.301.109. 21. XII.316.2 - nasti samkhyasamam jnanam | 22 P. Chakravarti, Origin and Devlopment of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 58-60.

Samkhya and Vedic Tradition 51

references in the Srutis. For the third point, Sankara quotes the passage in Śvetāśvatara Upanisad (VI.13) which says that one is freed from all the bondages by knowing that divine cause as enunciated by the Samkhya and Yoga." It is clear that Sankara criticises Samkhya to maintain his own philosophical position, but he could not wish away the high regard enjoyed by Samkhya as a spiritual system among the orthodox cultural groups. Samkhya on its Relationship with the Vedic Tradition It will be pertinent to know the Samkhya position about its relationship with the Vedic tradition, its views about the authority of the Vedas and the Vedic ideas and systems, and the extent to which it considers its own ideas to be sanctioned by the Vedic texts, being mentioned in them, or being in consonance with them or emanating from them. The difficulty is that we do not have any text belonging to the Samkhya tradition itself, which discusses this issue and belongs to the times before Sankara, the Samkhyakarika and the commentaries on it are not polemical. This holds good about other texts which are known to possess glimpses of Samkhya principles of an earlier period. The Samkhyapravacanasūtra and later commentaries of the medieval period are known to adopt a polemical approach and style. But, they are of a very late period, when many compulsions of historical development of ideas and principles influenced them to assume their own stance. Their evidence cannot hold good for the Samkhya view in the earlier stages of its formulation and development. On this question Sankara provides welcome information. In maintaining his own philosophical stand, he criticises other systems of philosophy. In this regard he shows the highest regard to the Samkhya, criticising it in great details.2 Sankara, in challenging

23 On Brahmasūtra, I1.1.3 - samkhyayogau hi paramapurusartha- sddhanatvena loke prakhyatau, sistaiśca parigrhitau lingena cn srautenopabrmhitau "tatkaranam samkhyayogabhipannam jñatva devam mucyate sarvapasaih" iti i1 24. On Vedantasutra, I.1.5-11, 18; 1:4.1-28; I1.1.1-11; II.2,1-10

52 Retrieving Samkhya History

the claims of the Samkhya to be authoritative, does not adduce arguments from any earlier Samkhya texts. He, however, presents faithfully the Samkhya point of view as purva-paksa. We can never know if he had polemical Samkhya texts on which he relied, or got information personally from representative Samkhya circles. In any case, the presentation of the Samkhya view, its ciriticism, the Samkhya rejoinder, and its further criticism suggest that Sankara's account of the Samkhya stand is very near to being a faithful representation.25 From this the emerging main Samkhya argument seems to be that the principle of pradhana as the cause of the world is consistent with the views of the scriptures (vedanta-vakya); that its own views are also expressed in scripture; and that its views are based on Smrti (authoritative tradition) and tarka (reasoning). As analysed by Sankara, for their sruti support the Samkhya philosophers rely on Kathaka, Svetāsvatara and Kaușttaki Upanișads and certain passages in the Chândogya Upanisad, VI (about Svetaketu), and Brhadaranyaka Upanişad, IV.4.17 (about five pentads) and IV.5.6 (Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi dialogue). They further quote the Gita, Manu-smrti and other Smrtis in their support and claim Smrti status for their own Samkhya tradition (Kapila-Tantra). They go to the extent of arguing for the primacy of the Smrti and reasoning, because there are many discrepancies in the Sruti itself about the origin of the world.

Śankara on Samkhya Claim of Śruti Sanction Though Sankara criticises Samkhya principles on the basis of philosophical reasoning, he is mainly concerned about the argument based on the authority of the Sruti and its sanction. For him the final authority is derived from the scriptures and reasoning, if it is subordinate to scripture. Thus, Sankara scrutinises in great detail the Samkhya claim of Sruti sanction for itself. Sankara does not challenge those Samkhya principles which are not opposed to the Veda, for example, the concept of self as 25. G.J. Larson, op. cit., pp. 209-35

Samkhya and Vedic Tradition 53

nirguna (without qualities) and the rules of yoga. Sankara argues that the Sruti maintains Brahman as sarvajna (omniscient) and sarvasakti (omnipotent) cause of the world and rejects as unsupported by Sruti the Samkhya principles of pradhāna, purusa- bahutva (plurality of selves) and buddhi, or mahat, etc., being derived from pradhāna. Sankara argues that passages in the scripture, which Samkhya supporters mention as upholding their views, mean something other than (tesam sabdanam anyaparatvam) what they claim. Sankara further argues that, in the case of a contradiction among the Smrtis, those which are in consonance with the Srutis get precedence (srutyanusarinyah smrtayah pramanam) and only that reasoning is to be relied upon which is approved by the Sruti (srutyanugrhita eva hi tarka). Sankara demonstrates that the Smrtis (including the Kapila-Tantra) are not in consonance with the Sruti and the Samkhya arguments are also not supported by Šruti.

Śankara on Śvetāśvatara Upanișad Reference to Kapila The Samkhya philosophers quote in support of their claim for Śruti sanction the passage in the Śvetāsvatara Upanişad (V.2)25 referring to the rsi Kapila. Sankara rejects the Samkhya claim for Vedic support. He says that by the Sruti passage, which has been quoted to indicate the extreme knowledge of Kapila, faith cannot be reposed in Kapila's principles, which are opposed to Sruti, merely on the basis of the commonness of the name Kapila in the Śruti, because of the tradition of another Kapila, Vasudeva by name, who burnt the sons ofSagara."7 According to Sankara, Kapila mentioned in the Svetasvatara Upanisad is not Kapila, the Samkhya expounder; he is to be identified with Vasudeva, an avatara of Visnu. This point 26 rşun prasütam kapilam yastamagra jnānaibibharti jayamānam ca pasyet 1 27 On Brahmasütra, II.1.1 - ya tu srutih kapilasya jnanātisayam pradarsayanti pradarsita, na taya srutiviruddhamapi kapilam matam kraddhatum sakyam, kapilamiti srutisāmanyamātratuat, anyasya ca kapilasya sagaraputrānām prataptur vasudevanāmnah amaranāt 1

54 Retrieving Samkhya History

has been made clear by Anandagiri and Govindananda, the commentators on Sankara. They add that it is erroneous to regard the expounder of Samkhya as Srauta merely on the basis of the word Kapila. Ānandagiri speaks of two Kapilas. Vasudeva Kapila was vaidika and was different from the expounder of Samkhya who was avaidika. Govindananda says that Kapila, the Samkhya expounder, was a dualist (dvaitavadin) and hence could not claim omniscience (sarvajnatva). The Kapila of sruti was endowed with omniscience and was an incarnation (amsa) of Vasudeva. He was omniscient (sarvajna), because he preached Vaidika Samkhya, characterised by the knowledge of sarvatmatva. In his commentary on the Śvetāsvatara Upanişad (V.2) Sankara interprets Kapila to stand for Hiranyagarbha, taking the word to refer to the tawny gold colour (kanaka-kapilavarna) of the Hiranyagarbha or, on the basis of the Puranic statement of Kapila as agraja or born in the beginning of the creation, explaining it as an adjective of Hiranyagarbha. However, later on in the same context he mentions Kapila as the rsi who appeared as an amsa of bhagavan Visnu and describes him as the Samkhya teacher (sāmkhyānam kapila devo). It is to be noticed that in his commentary on the Brahmasūtra, II.1.1 Sankara, quite against his stand to differentiate the Kapila of the Śvetasvatara Upanisad passage from Kapila of Samkhya and to identify him with Vasudeva, remarks that in the Upanisadic passage the main reference is to the Supreme Soul the omniscience of Kapila is mentioned only causally,2 thus admitting that Kapila of the passage is the Samkhya teacher.29 The above discussion suggests that Sankara was quite conscious of Kapila mentioned in the Svetasvatara Upanisad being the Samkhya teacher, but, for demolishing the Samkhya claim of a Śruti sanction and for rejecting the Samkhya interpretation of the Upanisads, he, to maintain his own Vedantic interpretation, undertook the exercise of identifying Kapila as an avatâra of Visnu in one place as Hiranyagarbha in another.

28. anyārthadarsanasya ca praptirahitasyasadhakatvat I 29. A.P. Mishra, op. cit., p. 50.

Samkhya and Vedic Tradition 55

Brahmanical Tradition not Favourable to Samkhya

In support of the view that the Samkhya system had a non-Vedic origin one of the arguments is that in some texts of the Brahmanical tradition Samkhya has not been referred to favourably. The Padma Purana30 mentions Kapila along with Jaimini as sages of the tamasa order and their writings are described as atheistic(nirisvara). There is evidence to show that the Samkhya was critical of the efficacy of sacrifices. The Samkhyakarika" begins by criticising the revealed or Vedic means of removing suffering (duhkha). They are not final or abiding like the perceptible means. They are impure in character, involve the slaughter of beasts and excesses. A similar criticism of the Vedic sacrifices as resulting in some evil, howsoever trivial, is attributed to Pancasikha by Vacaspati."2 In the Mahabharata" we have the episode of a Kapila, who, though not specifically mentioned as the propounder of Samkhya but possibly the same Kapila, disowning any intention to criticise the Vedas, points out the limited merit of sacrificial karma.

Samkhya arose in the Vedic Circle

It seems that the Samkhya arose in the Vedic circle itself. It possibly originated in times when the Vedic sacrifices were widely current. Though the Samkhya was not in full support of the sacrificial system, it will be equally wrong to describe it as the result of the reaction against sacrifices. As is well known, in the Vedic circle

30. Padma Purāna. 31. Kārika 1-2 - drste sa'pārtha cennaikantātyanto'bhavat I drstavad anusravikah sa hyativisuddhikşayātisayayuktah I1 The Satasastra of Aryadevn (translated from Chinese sources) expresses an identical view on the authority of the sutras of the Samkhyas. See P. Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 5, fn. 2. 32. Yogasütrabhaşya, II.13 - yatredamuktam syat svalpah sankarah sapariharah sapratyavamaryah kusalasya napakarşayalam l kasmāt? kusalam hi bahvanyadasti yatrayamavapam gatah svarge'pi apakarşamalpam karisyati it 11 33. XII.268-70.

56 Retrieving Samkhya History itself there were voices of protest against sacrifices."The Samkhya system does not represent a total opposition of the sacrifices. It does admit that the sacrifices have their efficacy, but points out that their results are of a limited nature and suffer from other defects. For enduring results and for liberation from duhkha it advocates a different method. There are indications that in the Vedic period itself there were two parallel religious traditions. One, which seems to have been more widely current, subscribed to the system of sacrifices. The other tradition was contemplative; it believed in acquiring a true knowledge through reasoning and analysis. Whereas the sacrificial tradition aimed at worldly gains, the other tradition set as its goal the total innihilation of suffering and complete liberation. The Samkhya system seems to have arisen in the second tradition in the Vedic circle. This possibility can be seen in the episode of Kapila and Syumarasmi recorded in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata.35 Kapila, in his criticism of the sacrifices for being of a limited merit and efficacy, holds to his Vedic mooring and asserts his position of not criticising the Vedas. The Samkhyakarika3 also mentions together two means ofremoving duhkha: the revealed or Vedic (anusravika) and another, which is different from it and is superior on account of the discriminating knowledge of the manifest, the unmanifest and the knower. The Samkhyakarika, no doubt, belongs to a late date in the history of Samkhya, but, in view of its tacit admission that it is based on earlier works and presents the principles in a summarised manner,"7 it is not unlikely that here Isvarakrsna wants to clarify the origin of Samkhya and its Vedic connexions. Âsuri, the immediate disciple of Kapila, was a staunch believer in the sacrifices, sacrificing for a thousand years (varsa- sahasrayäjt). All this shows that the system arose in Vedic circles; it was not totally opposed to sacrifices; for higher goals and results it regarded sacrifices to be of limited merit.

34. H.C. Raychaudhuri, Political History of Ancient India, p. 315. 35. XII.268-70 36. Karika 2 37. Karikds 69-71

Samkhya and Vedic Tradition 57

Conclusion

To conclude, the Samkhya did not have a non-Vedic origin. It arose in the Vedic circle itself. It believed in reasoned exposition. It regarded the sacrifices to have a limited efficacy. In the beginning it was a system of the knowledge of self (atma-jnana) which explained the process of creation and, for overcoming the sufferings of human existence and for achieving liberation, expounded the system of spiritual knowledge. In this form the Samkhya gained recognition as the foremost system and was respected and adopted by many sects and disciplines. This position of respect survived in later times when the Samkhya acquired its dualistic emphasis and other associated features. The criticism by Sankara, and those influenced by his thought, originated from antagonism as philosophical system, and, in this process, Samkhya's Vedic sanction was tried to be explained away. But, Sankara himself indicates the high position enjoyed by Samkhya in orthodox circles.

3

Sāmkhya and the Upanișads

Upanisadic Evidence for Sāmkhya History

VIEWS OF MODERN SCHOLARS GENERALLY scholars studying the origins of Samkhya as a system of philosophy connect it with the Upanisads in some way or the other.' Garbe, who holds that the Sämkhya system has not undergone any remarkable change in the course of its history, places its original formulation in the period between the oldest pre-Buddhistic Upanisads and the rise of Buddhism.2 P. Oltramare places Samkhya in the Brahmanical tradition; it took its birth in the context prepared by the ancient Upanisads and represents strong reaction against some of the themes in that tradition.3 Others have postulated a more direct connexion between the Upanişads and Sāmkhya. They consider Samkhya as the lineal descendant of the ancient speculation which is found in the Vedic-Upanisadic texts. According to J. Dahlmann, Sämkhya was the first systematic formulation of the ancient speculations found in the Brahmanas and early

1. See G.J. Larson, Classical Samkhya, pp. 16-72, for a survey of some of the important attempts to reconstruct the history of the pre- Isvarakrşna Sâmkhya. 2 Die Samkhya Philosophie, p. 26. 3. L' Histoire das Idees Theosophiques dans L'Inde, Tome Premier (La Theosophie Brahmanique), pp. 222-3. He considers the basie dualism of Samkhya to be between Being and Becoming.

60 Retrieving Samkhya History

Upanisads, its purusa and prakrti dualism arising out of the dualism of atmon and that which is not atman. Oldenberg propounded the thesis that Samkhya has developed in a direct line out of the Brahman-atman speculations of the old Upanişads.5 This resulted in a 'pre-classical Samkhya' to be seen in middle and younger Upanisads-Katha, Śvetasvatara, Maitrayani, etc. This approach has been adopted and elaborated by subsequent scholars. Keith holds that the Samkhya is derived out of the speculations in the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanisads.7 According to S.N. Dasgupta, the major ideas and terms of Samkhya are received from the Vedic-Upanisadic heritage.8 E.H. Johnston demonstrates that "Samkhya is rooted in the speculations of the Brähmanas and the oldest Upanisads about the constitution of the individual."9 According to him, of the five phases through which early Samkhya speculation developed, the first, an incomplete form of Samkhya, is found in the Katha Upanisad, the second, a more systematic form of Samkhya emerged in the interval between the Katha and Śvetāśvatara Upanisads, and the third, a theistic phase, is seen in the Svetāsvatara Upanisad.10 E. Frauwallner11 does not take references to Samkhya in the Upanișads as actual Sāmkhya speculation, but as influenced by it. He maintains that the Samkhya arose out of that stream of development which originates in the Fire Theory of the Upanisads,

4. Die Samkhya Philosophie als Naturlehre und Erlosungslahre, pp. 12- 13, 180ff, 251ff. 5. "Zur Geschichte der Samkhya-Philosophie", Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingan, 1918, p. 248, Other cases of dualism in the oldest Upanisads are of unity and multiplicity, subject and object, self and non-self. 6. Ibid., p. 218. Katha uses some of the technical terms of Samkhya: auyakta, purusa, indriya, manas, buddhi, etc. See ibid., p. 222. 7. The Samkhya System, p.8 8 A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I. p. 211. 9. Early Samkhya, p. 21. 10 Ibid., pp. 81-8. 11. History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 223, 227-36,

Samkhya and the Upanisads 61

is at the basis of the doctrine of the Buddha, and is found variously in the epic. According to him, the early Samkhya speculation, as found in the original "Grund text" in the Moksadharmaparva section of the Santiparva in the Mahabharata, was a further working out of the doctrine of self in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. R.D. Ranade1z is opposed to Garbe's" view that the oldest Upanisads do not contain any traces whatsoever of the Samkhya philosophy. He points out that the conception of the three colours in the Chandogya Upanisad led to the conception of the tri-coloured prakrti in Samkhya; the Kathopanisad enunciates the mind (manas) and intellect (buddhi), the mahat, the avyakta and the purusa which formed important categories in Samkhya; and the Prasnopanisad adumbrates the conception of the linga-sarira of Samkhya.1 G.J. Larson15 is cautious. He says that the earliest Upanisads, as also the Rgueda, Atharvaveda and the Brahmanas, do not provide a Samkhya system or a clear Samkhya terminology, but contain 'doctrines and trends of thought which may have been assimilated into Samkhya'. He traces the first references to Samkhya- Yoga terminology in the Katha Upanisad.

ARGUMENTS BASED ON UPANISADS Thus, we see that, broadly speaking, the use of the Upanisadic testimony implies two main arguments: (1) the early Upanisads, Chandogya and Brhadaranyaka, do not contain any reference to the Samkhya or its doctrines and (2) the middle Upanisads, Katha, Śvetāsvatara and Maitrāyani, contain, in varying degrees, principles resembling the Samkhya system. The inference generally derived from the first argument is that the Samkhya system could not have been formulated before the

12 Survey of Upanisadic Philosophy, (2nd edn.), Preface, p. ix. 13 Samkhya Philosophie, p. 27. 14. Ranade, Loc. cit., pp. 134-5. 15. Op. cit., pp. 73, 78-96.

62 Retrieving Samkhya History

times of the Upanisads, Some scholars further infer that Samkhya cannot be taken to have been contemporaneous with the early Upanisads. A third inference, suggested by some scholars, would place the origin of the Samkhya principles after the period of the early Upanisads. The second main argument is based on the evidence supplied by the middle Upanisads, namely Katha, Svetasvatara and Maitrayani. Scholars have offered different interpretations of the nature of the occurrences in these Upanisads, either as referring to the Samkhya principles, or to a form of Samkhya earlier than that of the classical Samkhya. Sometimes the second possibility has been elaborated as indicating that before the atheistic Samkhya as standardised by Isvarakrsna, there was an earlier phase, reflected in the middle Upanisads, which referred to a theistic form of Samkhya. Some scholars trace development and change within the middle Upanisads. They regard the Katha Upanisad to refer to an earlier and undeveloped form of Samkhya, and take the Śvetasvatara to reflect a slightly developed from of Samkhya.

METHODOLOGICAL REQUIREMENTS In analysing the Upanisadic evidence we have to make ourselves sure about its nature and comparative position. Are we to interpret the Upanisadic references as pointing to principles which originated in earlier times or, we suggest that they reflect contemporary views? Scholars have not addressed themselves to this methodological problem. They interpret the Upanisadic evidence in their own manner, to suit the convenience of their own formulation of the stages in the origin and development of Samkhya. They have not argued in support of their stand about the chronological significance of the Upanisadic reference. Another methodological problem, which requires to be considered before we evaluate the Upanisadic references for determining the history of Samkhya, concerns the identification of the principles mentioned in the Upanisads with those of the Samkhya. We have to answer the question whether the references

Samkhya and the Upanisads 63

relate to Samkhya or to some other system. The Upanisadie texts are themselves silent on the point. If we hold that the Upanisads are not referring to Samkhya principles, then we will have to take the position that there was an undefined common stream from which developments in both the Samkhya and the Upanisadic channels were diverted. This will have an important bearing on the interpretation of Upanisadic evidence for the reconstruction of the history of Samkhya, the nature of the evidence and its chronology. Generally scholars using the Upanisadic evidence for the history of Samkhya have been influenced by two alternative assumptions. They think that Samkhya has borrowed principles from the Upanisads and hence its early history is to be delineated on the basis of the references in the Upanigads. Those who subseribe to the alternative possibility of connexions of Samkhya references in Upanisadic texts with another source, hold that the later development of Samkhya is along lines indicated by the Upanisads. They cannot imagine the situation of early Samkhya history being considered independent of Upanisadic evidence. We would suggest a third possibility that the origin and early history of Samkhya be considered independently. It is not necessary to tie Samkhya history inseparably with the Upanisads. Whatever its origin, Vedic, non-Vedic or folk streams, Samkhya seems to have followed its own course of development. This development was not conditioned by the Upanisads. The Upanisads do not have a direct bearing on the history of the Samkhya system. They reflect the Samkhya only marginally. It is not Samkhya in its totality that is recorded in the Upanisadic texts. Only those principles of Samkhya are mentioned in the Upanisads which are relevant to them. The total absence of Samkhya principles in the early Upanisads and their partial or modified account in the middle Upanisads can lead to a compelling inference only when it is demonstrated that a reference to Samkhya principles was binding on the authors of the Upanisads. If the subject-matter of the Upanisads and some particular passages and contexts in them necessitate a reference to the principles of Samkhya and we do not find any mention, then

64 Retrieving Samkhya History only the absence will have a meaningful value. The negative evidence by itself cannot lead to a positive inference, because there can be several possible explanations of the absence of the reference. The Upanisads are not in the form of compendiums or digests of views on topics of their interest. Ordinarily the Upanisads do not make any effort to collect all the views on any given point. From the contexts in various Upanisads we do not see a situation which makes it obligatory on the part of their authors to refer to different views. The Upanisads have a characteristic style. Often the principles are enunciated in course of a dialogue between two persons. An important thinker or philosopher communicates his philosophical ideas to his disciple or to a person seeking enlightenment. Sometimes the teacher himself poses questions and then correcting or improving upon the reply given by the inquirer elaborates his own view. This type of arrangement does not give any scope for the enunciation of the principles of other systems. In view of the importance of the issue we would discuss in greater details the question of the meaning of the term Upanisad, the contents and scope of the Upanisads, and the style adopted for presenting principles and views in them.

Meaning and Scope of Upanisads Sankara, the great Advaita philosopher, provides useful information about the scope and contents of the Upanisads. In the introductory passages ofhis commentary on some of the Upanisads16 he discusses the derivation of the word upanisad and how it indicates the purpose and central theme of the Upanisadic texts. He derives the word upanisad from kvibanta sadi with the prefix upa and ni.17

16 Aitareyopanişad, Mundakopanişad, Brhadāranyakopanisad and Taittirlyopanisad. 17. On Aitareyopanişad - upanişadityupapürvasya sadeh kibantasya tišaranagatyavasāda nārthasya rūpamācakșate I On Brhadaranykopanisad - upanīpūrvasya sadestadarthatuar 4

Samkhya and the Upanisads 65

Using the component parts of the word upanisad as basis, Sankara elaborates its scope and meaning. In his commentary on the Aitareyopanisad1 he says that those, who with purpose remain near (upa) this science of soul, through their soul, are steadfast in the science of soul. The science of soul annihilates (avasadayati) or destroys their ignorance, etc., which are the seeds of the cycle oflife, leads to the realisation (nigamayati) or understading of the supreme soul and cuts asunder (nisatayati) conception in the womb, birth, old age, disease, etc., hence it is known as Upanisad. In his commentary on the Mundakopanisad1 Sankara explains upanisad as the science of brahma which cuts asunder (nisatayati) the collection of evils, such as conception in the womb, birth, old age and diseases, leads to the supreme Brahma (gamayati) or completely annihilates (avasadayati) or destroys the causes of the cycle of life, such as ignorance, of those who approach it (upayanti) with feelings of self-preceded by faith and devotion. The explanation in the commentary on the Taittiriyopanisad20 is not so elaborate. Here Sankara says that Upanisad is called a science on account of the cutting asunder (nisatanat) or annihilation (avasadanat) on cenception in the womb, birth, diseases, etc., of those who follow it or their coming closer (upanigamayitrtvat) to the Brahman or the highest good being closely formulated (upanisannam) in it. The explanation in the commentary on the Brhadaranyakopanisad" is a very brief one. It says that this science of Brahman is termed upanisad because it completely annihilates (avasadanāt) the cycle

18. ye hyasyomatmavidyayam tatparyesa upa atmataya vartante atmavidyanişthasteşamatmavidyadisam-sārabtjamavasādayati vināsayati param catmanam nigamayati avabodhayati garbhajanma- jarārogādimsca nisātayati ata eyamātmavīdyā upanișat 11 19. ya imam brahmavidyamupayantyatmabhavena sradhabhakti- purahsarāh santasteşām garbhajanmajarārogādyanarthayūgam nisatayati, param vā brahma gamayati, avidyādisamsārakāranam catyantamavāsadayati vināsayatityupanisat 11 20 upanişaditi vidyocyate, tacchilindm garbhajanmajarādinisatanat tadavasādanad va brakmano va upanigamayitrtvat upanisannam ba'syam param sreya iti 1 21. tatparanam sahetoh samsdrasyatyantavasadanāt |

66 Retrieving Samkhya History of life, along with its cause, of those who follow it. In his commentary on the Aitareyopanisad" Sankara gives the additional information that the science ofprana, etc., being auxiliary to the science of atman, also come under the category of Upanisad. ankara, thus, uses the word upanisad as signifying a vidya1 and paraphrases it as dtma-vidya4 and brahma-vidya." In the commentary on the Aitareyopanisad" the atma-vidya is designated specially by the word upanisad. But, in the commentary on the Brhadaranyakopanisad" Sankara says that the brahma-vidya is designated by the word upanisad. Sankara introduces another element in his conception of upanisad as a vidyd when he describes it as the science of the identity of brahman and atman and as the means of liberation from the cause of the cycle of life.25 This analysis shows that Sankara took upanisad as the science of atman, the science of Brahman or, to be more elaborate, the science of the identity ofatman and Brahman. The science ofprana, etc., were auxiliary to this science. This science aimed at annihilating the sufferings of life, conception, birth, old age and diseases destroying ignorance and other causes of the cycle of birth, death and leads to a realisation of Brahman or to an understanding of the nature of ātman. Śankara adds that the texts which deal with this import of the word upanisad and also designated as the upanisad.29

22. tadupaharakatvāt pranādividyānamapyupanisatvam i 23. On Taittirlyopanisad-upanişaditi vidyocyate 24 On Aitareyopanisad 25 On Brhadaranyakopanişad and Mundakopanisad. 26 visesena copanisacchabdavacyd atmavidya 1 27. seyam brahmavidyd upanisacchabdavacya 1 28 On Brhaddranyakopanisad -samsarahetuniurtti-sadhanabrahma- trnaikatvavidya 1 29 On Aitareyopanişad - tadarthyat grantho'pyupanisat | On Taittirlyopanisad - tadarthatvat granthopyupanisat ) On Brhadäranyakopanizad -tādarthyad grantho'pyupanişaducyate l

Samkhya and the Upanisads 67

Problems Considered by the Upanisads R.D. Ranade30 has aptly summarised the chief problems that are considered by the Upanisads. The Upanisadic philosophers began with a desire to know the 'arche' of knowledge. Failing to find this in the cosmological sphere, they searched after it in the psychological domain. They explored the transmundane problem of the persistence of the self after death. For them the most central problem was that of the Ultimate, the Real. Its intellectual solution led into the very heart of mataphysics. The effort to attain to that knowledge involved ethics for the norm of conduct to be followed. "Mysticism was the culmination of Upanisadic philosophy, ... the cosmology and the psychology, the metaphysics and the ethics of the Upanisads are merely a propaedeutic to their mystical doctrine."31 The central point not only of all philosophies, but also of all religions and ethics, has been man's contemplation of himself, the study of the self. This holds good for the Upanisads as well. The Upanisadic philosopher explores this problem at two levels - the cosmological (adhidaivata) and the psycho-physical (adhyatma). Thus, the two concepts of fundamental importance to the Upanisads are the Brahman and the dtman. The unique significance of Upanisadic philosophy is its realisation of the identity of the two. Laxman Shastri Joshi in the Upanisatkanda ofhis monumental work Dharmakosa has not discussed the characteristic subject- matter of the Upanisads. One may, however, form some idea on the basis of topics on which original passages from the Upanisads have been collected by him. But, on account of the concern for giving an encyclopaedic coverage, the main or central points tend to be mixed with others of a secondary nature. In his introductory remarks Joshi"1 emphasises the importance of the conceptions of dtman and the Brahman. According to him, "At the root of the Upanisads lie the eagerness to investigate truth and the intense craving of the

30. R.D. Ranade, pp. 44-5. 31. Ibid., p. 45 32 Pp. 102-3.

68 Retrieving Samkhya History heart for liberation. The very desire to find the ultimate reality in the universal phenomena and to determine the highest moral ideals is an ethical motive, and it is the very foundation of the Upanișadic philosophy." Though there is uniformity in regard to the central point or subject-matter of the Upanisads, it will be wrong to take all the Upanisads as constituting one systematic whole or as advocating one single doctrine." One can notice considerable variations in exposition of principles in the various Upanisads. The variation can be seen not only in terms of the particular point or points in Upanisadic philosophy selected for exposition, but also in their contents and manner of exposition. Within the broad pattern of principles we can find differences in regard to emphasis, details and method of presentation. Sometimes the views seem to be quite opposed to one another. The impression of uniformity in the Upanisadic texts has been strengthened by the later commentators, who in their keenness to support their own philosophical system, have read into the Upanisads the principles of their own systems and, through commendable scholarly ingenuity and arguing, have tried to iron out even the most apparent textual differences. The differences could not be appreciated as honest and unavoidable differences resulting from the fact that they were the products of not one but many minds. It is due to the long use of the historical and critical method of studying the Upanisadic texts, which has been introduced by the Western scholarship, that justice could be done to the individual character as different from the broad uniform label used for them. The realisation that the Upanisadic texts contain the views of many seers, who belonged to different periods. and record principles showing variations, is the result of modern scholarship.

Fallacious Expectations from the Upanisads Two facts are mainly responsible for creating a wrong impression about the position of Upanisads in the history of Indian philosophy. 33. R.D. Ranade, op.cit., pp. 131-2

Samkhya and the Upanisads 69

One is the traditional view describing Upanisads as texts belonging to the category of Sruti. The other, which possibly received support from the traditional view, is the assumption on the part of modern historians of Indian philosophy that "the highest philosophic thought in the Upanisads was not a gradual development, but was the result of a spontaneous, miraculous and revolutionary inspiration, that it was a phenomenon which had burst itself loose from all old traditions".3 R.D. Ranade" has suggested a very appealing explanation of the appellation Sruti used for the Upanisads along with the Vedas and the Brahmanas. The Naiyayikas explain them as pauruseya or composed by God; the Mimamsakas regard them as apauruseya or existing from eternity in the form of sounds. According to Ranade, both these explanations are futile. The Vedantin explanation of these texts as apauruseya or inspired by God (purusaprayatnam vina proktam) comes nearest to the significance of the word sruti used for them. These texts are to "be regarded as having been composed by seers in a state of god-intoxication".35 In the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad37 the Upanisads, along with some other texts, are described as breathed forth by that Great Divinity. Explaining it in the light of some other Upanisadic passages, Ranade infers that "the Upanisads are regarded by the Upanisads themselves as being the work of the inspirational activity of God in human mind". The assumption on the part of some modern scholars that the Upanisadic teachings had a sudden emergence is a historical non- sense. No doubt, the Upanisadic principles in their characteristic form find expression only in the Upanisads. But, history amply demonstrates that no new principle or change in ideas is completely abrupt. In the case of Upanisadic philosophy also we can trace the roots of some of its essential principles in the earlier texts and in

34. L.S. Joshi, Dharamkosa, Upanışatkanda, Vol. I, Part 1, Preface, p. 9. 35. Op. cit., pp. 6-8. 36. Ibid,, p. 7 37. II.4.10.

70 Retrieving Samkhya History many cases we can delineate the line of evolution howsoever dimly. There is a demonstrable continuity of religious practices and philosophical speculation from the Rgueda to the Upanisads. Some scholars trace the seeds of the Upanisadic concepts ofdtman and its identity with Brahman in earlier Vedic texts.

Authors and Philosophers of the Upanisads The individual authors of different Upanisads will remain hidden from us. The Upanisadic texts or later traditions do not provide evidence to identify the authors of these texts and to place them in time an space. It is only in the case of the Maitri and Svetasvatara Upanisads that the names of the propounders of the doctrines have been retained in the names of the texts. It is clear that we cannot apportion all the details of Upanisadic philosophy to their individual propounders. In many cases we have a statement of the philosophical views, but its author has unknowingly or deliberately avoided mentioning his name. As remarked by R.D. Ranade,M "there must have been many a philosopher who lived, and thought, and died unknown. His work has remained, though his personality has been lost". Among the names actually occurring in the Upanisads3 there are some which clearly refer to unhistorical or mythological personages, such as Indra, Virocana, Prajăpati, Varuņa and Yama. R.D. Ranade has noted the names of several philosophers and pointed out their significant views, Among mystical and moral philosophers he names Trisanku, Maitri, Rathitara, Pauraisișți, Nāka Maudgalya, Mahidāsa Aitareya, Āruņī, Kaușītaki, Paīngya, Pratardana, Suskabhrngara and Jaivali. The cosmological and psychological philosophers listed are Uddalaka, Prācīnasāla, Budila, Sarkarāksya, Indradyumna, Satyayajña, Raikva, Aśvapati Kaikeya, Satyakāma Jābāla, Gārgya, Ajātaśatru, Pippalāda, Kabandhī Katyāyana, Bhārgava Vaidarbhi, Kausalya Āsvalāyana, Sauryāyan Gārgya, Saibya Satyakāma, Sukešī Bhāradvāja, Bhujya, Vāmadeva,

38. L.C. Joshi, op. cit., p. 31. 39. R.D. Ranade, op cif., pp, 30-41

Samkhya and the Upanisads 71

Bhrgu, Jitvan Sailini, Udanka Šaulbāyana, Varku Varsņa, Gardabhiviplta Bhāradvāja, Vidagdha Sakalya and Yâjnavalkya. Metaphysical philosophers occupy an important position in the Upanişadic thought. Of these Sandilya, Dadhyanc, Sanatkumāra, Aruni and Yajnavalkya are the most prominent

No Samkhya Philosopher in the Upanisads All these names do not include a single Samkhya philosopher. Even though we cannot claim that the names of all the early Samkhya authorities have down to us we are assumed that the prominent among them have been mentioned in one or the other source.4° It is not without significance that the Upanisads do not mention the views of any one of the Samkhya philosophers. There are some contexts where views parallel to those of Samkhya have been expressed. We have some occasions where on particular topics divergent views have been listed." The Samkhya stand would have been relevant here. Most of the names of thinkers whose views are recorded here do not appear from the surviving records to have been notable parsonalities. We do not find support of their eminence and their significant ideas from other texts. In such a situation the absence of a reference to any Samkhya celebrity or his principal principles assumes a greater significance. We cannot maintain the position that none of the Samkhya philosophers existed before or during the course of the composition of the many Upanisadic texts, because this world create serious difficulties in formulating the early history of the Samkhya system and in fixing the date of the formulation of different principles and of the important philosophers. A reasonable explanation will be that the authors of the Upanisads did not consider it necessary to refer to the Samkhya philosophers and their views. They were referring to the views of

40. U.V. Shastri, Samkhya darsana ka Itihasa, pp. 570-645. See alao H.D. Sharma, The Samkhya-teachers", Festschrift Moriz Winternitz. Leipzig, 1933, pp. 225-31. 41. Chandogya; V.II.1-4, Prasna, I.If, Brhadaranyaka, IV.1.1-7

72 Retrieving Samkhya History only those philosophers who belonged to the Upanisadic circle. The suggestion would emerge that they did not consider the Samkhya philosophers as falling within their own circle and hence did not feel any compulsion to include a reference to them in their texts. Method and Style of the Upanisads We may investigate how far the method or style of presentation accepted by the authors of the Upanisads creates the possibility of an occasion to refer to the views of other systems of philosophy or other philosophers. R.D. Ranade42 has listed ten.different methods resorted to by the Upanisadic authors according to the needs of discussion. Of these, five refer to the nature of argument and are not at all conducive to any expectation of the Samkhya system being referred to. The enigmatic method contains engimatic riddles and cryptic expressions or sentences. The aphoristic method adopts the pattern of the later Sūtra texts. The étymological method is in the nature of word puzzles in which different parts in any word are explained as signifying different concepts. In the mythical method parables or myths are used 'to, deduce lessons. The analogual method envisages to explain by images what cannot be done by logic. The remaining five methods are not so irrelevant to the question under'investigation. Here again the monologic method does not appear to be helpful for the nature of reference we are expetting.It is the method of soliloquy; the speaker, after'answering'to the questioner's problem, is lost in a reverie, thinking 'aloud about problems'beyond the bounds of the original question. Three other methods would appear:to be more relevant in offering a possibility for referring to' the' views of others.' The dialectic method (used in its root sense and not in the Platonic or Hegelian sense); is the method of the dialogue. In the ad hoc or temporising method the speakers do not discuss all the aspects of a'question. They discuss'"the one which is immediately before

42. Op. cit., pp: 23-8.

Sāmkhya and the Upanișads 73

them, and according to the capacity of the learner". The regressive method "takes the form of many.successive questions, every new question'carrying us behind the answer to the previous question". But, in all these three methods there is no debate between the supporters of two different systems, one presenting his principles which the other criticises to formulate his own. They are in the form of an interlocution, in which the main speaker asks his disciple or a seeker after truth a question, to which the latter gives a wrong or partially correct answer and then the former explains or elaborates the principle or else the latter poses his problem of enquiry, which is explained by the main speaker. Naturally, the points discussed cannot, prdinarily relate to subjects beyond the scope of the main subject-matter of the Upanisads; the chances for other systems of thought being discussed in the Upanisads do not arise.

Synthetic Method : It is only in the case of the synthetic method that we have the possibility of a number of views being referred to. In this method the speaker, without discussing the different views and their arguments sympathetically, includes them in a higher synthesis, Instances of the use of the method by Asvapati Kaikeya,43 Pippalāda44 and Yajñavalkya are found. This is not the general or most common method adopted by the authors of the Upanisads for presenting their views: This type of treatmeht is to be found only in a few of the many Upanişads.Even in these Upanisads this method has been followed at a very few places and not throughout the texts. ' Evidently, the Upanisads are not texts of the nature of a Sarvadarsana-samgraha, wherein the views of all the important systems or schools of philosophy find representation. They also differ from philosophical texts of later time's in which the äuthor estabhshes the principles of his own systém; but presents the views I 43. Chandoga Upanişad, V.11.1-4. 44. Praśnopanișad, I.1ff 45. Brhaddranyaka Upanișad, IV.1.1-7. 46. .Chandogya, Prasna and Brhaddranyaka ..

74 Retrieving Samkhya History of other schools as purva-paksa. The authors of commentaries on philosophical texts have also chosen to refer to different views as propounded by various schools to make their account exhaustive and authentic. The Upanisads have not assumed any such function for themselves. Wecould have expected a reference to Samkhya in the Upanisads if they had been cast in the mould of Nibandha texts in the Dharmasastra literature or texts dealing with the theory and practice of Kavyasastra and its different branches. The former are clearly in the nature of digests or compendiums and the latter reproduce profuse quotations from earlier texts and authorities. Considering their techniques or method the Upanisads cannot be compared with these categories of texts. In cases where the Upanisads adopt the synthetic method there is an open and direct reference to the views of others. Here there is no case of the principles of other systems being incorporated unknowingly or without acknowledgement. If the Samkhya ideas had been accommodated in the Upanisads, they would have been acknowledged as the views of Samkhya system or one of its philosophers. Thus, we see that the different methods adopted in the Upanisads for propounding views do not provide any compelling occssion for recording the Samkhya views, If the authors of the Upanisads actually wanted to refer to the Samkhya views, they would have mentioned them openly and would not have borrowed them without acknowledgement.

Ranade's Criticism It is interesting to note that R.D. Ranade47 was aware of the force of the argument we have adopted here and actually applied it in analysing a problem connected with the Upanisads. He takes up issue with Hertel for his observation that Brahman in the

47. Op. cit., Preface, p. xi 48. Die Weisheit der Upanishaden, Kenopanisad, Introduction.

Samkhya and the Upanisads 75

Kenopanisad is not to be understood as "the World-Soul in which all the individual Souls ultimately merge". Ranade points out that this Upanisad aims at describing Brahman as a power or a presence, hence "it would be an ignoratio elenchi on the part of that Upanisad to go into the description of the Brahman as a "World-soul in which all the other souls ultimately merge". His methodological argument is that we cannot accuse the Upanisad of not having considered a point which is not the point at issue. His logic is that if the context requires a particular type of statement, then only its absence can be used to deduce any inference. Though Ranade uses this argument in a particular case, he does not apply it generally to the Upanisads for studying the problem of the origins and antiquity of the Samkhya; he has not applied to the fact that there is a total absence of a reference or that there is only a partial reference to Samkhya in the Upanisads the type of logic he used in rebutting Hertel's thesis based on the absence of a reference in the Kenopanisad to a partieular aspect of the concept of Brahman.

Chronology of Upanişads A consideration of the question of the connexion between the Upanisads and the Samkhya system requires a discussion of the chronology of the Upanisads. Even after the scholarly researches of a long line of competent scholars, we cannot determine the exact date of the composition of any of the Upanisads. R.D. Ranade49 phaces thirteen Upanisads in the category of Old Upanisads which belonged to the Upanisadic age to be placed between 1200 sc and 600 Bc. He classes these Upanisads into five groups: I. Brhadaranyaka and Chandogya IL Isa and Kena III. Aitareya, Taittiriya and Kauşitaki IV. Katha, Muņdaka and Śvetāsvatara V. Prasna, Maitri and Mandūkya.

49 Op cit pp. 8-10

76 Retrieving Samkhya History But, generally scholars subscribe to a more limited time-bracket for these earlier Upanisads, placing their origin between 800 Bc and 600 ac and bringing the lower limit down to 400 Bc and 300 BC Likewise, these early Upanisads are classified into a more simplified way into Old, Middle and Late Upanisads. The relative chronology of the Upanisads and the known texte containing Samkhya terms and ideas no doubt suits the possibility of the Upanisads containing the seeds of Samkhya. But, as the dates of the different Upanisads are not settled, it will not be possible to dogmatise in favour of or against the possibility of Samkhya evolving out of the Upanisadic philosophy or about any effort to determine the different stages in the evolution of Samkhya through different Upanisads.

Affinities between Upanişads and Sāmkhya The Upanisads and Samkhya system have some affinities, which may explain the occurrence of some of the Samkhya principles and terms in the Upanisads. Both seem to have arisen in the same cultural milieu. They are concerned about similar problems. It was not unlikely that in formulating their views they came to similar inferences and views. The Upanisads and Samkhya alike are taken to partake of the broader tradition of thought which is often designated as the Sramana tradition,50 Another parallel theory, relevant to our present discussion, envisages a ksatriya tradition as different from and, to some extent, opposed to the brahmana tradition. All those ideas institutions, and texts, which do not have a visible connexion with the Vedas and cultural traditions associated with them, are attributed to a different stream. The theory is often advanced with reference to the Puranas.51 Elaborating the hypothesis it has been suggested that the Upanisads, Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya-Yoga and Puranas all were the

G.C. Pande, Origines of Buddhism, pp. 258-61, 541-57; Sramanism and Its Impact on Indian Culture, Ahmedabad, 1978. 51. Pargiter, Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, chapter V, See also V Gordon Childe, The Aryans, p. 32

Samkhya and the Upanisads 77

creation of this ksatriya tradition." The theory has been criticised by many scholars.5 It will not be correct to postulate a dichotomy between brahmana and ksatriya traditions. Though there were occasions of clashes of interest between the brahmana and the ksatriya in the social and political spheres, we cannot subscribe to the view that there was any fundamental difference between the philosophies and values of the two varnas. But, it has to be conceded that the philosophies and literary traditions mentioned above are not completely compatible with the Vedic tradition and, to that extent, may be given a separate recognition. This would imply that the Upanisads and the Samkhya system have certain common features and similarities in their ideas as a result of their being derived from the same broad stream of tradition.

Samkhya Terminology and Principles in the Upanisads The occurrence of Samkhya terminology and Samkhya and semi- Samkhya principles in Upanisads can be explained in another manner. As we have suggested earlier, Samkhya tradition had its separate existence free from the Upanisadic circles. Samkhya is respected in Indian tradition as the earliest and very ancient system of philosophy. It is not unlikely that the authors of the Upanisads could not ignore the Samkhya views and terms. If we postulate that the Samkhya system and Upanisads had a common origin from one common and broader stream then the explanation of the occurrence of same terms and similar principles is facilitated. It can be easily surmised that the terms in currency in the philosophical world of those times were put to handy use by the authors of the Upanisads. They do not seem to have acquired definite restricted meaning. It is only when terms get closely

52 R. Garbe, "Die Weisheit des Brahmanen oder die Kriegars" Beitrage zur indischen Kulturgeschichte, Berlin, 1903, pp. Hff, E. Frauwallner, pp cit. pp. 34f 53. H. Oldenberg, Die Lehre der Upanisaden und die Anfange des Buddhismus, Gottingen, 1915, pp. 166ff. See A.D. Pusalker in The Vedic Age, ed. by R.C. Majumdar and A D. Pusalkar, p. 309

78 Retrieving Samkhya History connected with a particular system, which, thus, imparts a monopolistic connotation to them, that the terms receive a restricted usage. We know of cases where terms having a fixed meaning in the traditions of a particular sect or school have been used by writers outside the narrow circle of that group in a broader, more general or even different sense. But, before these terms receive the label of a particular class or group acquire a fixed meaning they are the common property of all people and can be used by anybody without the least hesitation. We suggest that in the case of terms, which later acquired a close association with Samkhya philosophy, we can offer the same explanation. It seems likely that the terms under reference were in common circulation. They were borrowed by both the Upanisads and the Samkhya from the same common source. Another possibility, which has to be recognised, is that though the Samkhya system used these terms, their association with Samkhya was not of such a long duration as to acquire a fixed association and a rigid meaning. As regards the appearance of Samkhya principles or proto- Samkhya views in the Upanisads we have seen that the authors of the Upanisads were under no obligation to mention Samkhya views or to quote from Samkhya texts. They had their own pattern or system of thought. They would condescend to borrow from other sources details which could be adopted in their own pattern of thought. Those principles, which could not be accommodated within the Upanisadic system of thought, would hardly be expected to find a place in the Upanisads. The important question is the relevance of a particular principle or details associated with it to the Upanisadic thought. The authors of the Upanisadic texts cannot be expected to have been a willing party to the occurrence of irrelevant details or to principles radically opposed to their own finding a mention in the Upanisads. Thus, we can suggest that the Upanisads, when they refer to Samkhya principles, select only those which were relevant to them and were not opposed to their ideas, omitting in the process other details.

Samkhya and the Upanisads 79

Conclusion In the light of our discussion we can formulate certain suggestions about the relevance of the Upanisadic evidence for delineating the origin and early history of Samkhya. We have seen that the absence of a reference to Samkhya in the early Upanisads does not necessarily mean that the Samkhya philosophy did not exist by the time of the early Upanisads. We cannot rule out the possibility that, though Samkhya philosophy had originated, its principles were not considered relevant to be mentioned. Likewise, the reference to some of the Samkhya principles and the occurrence of some of the Samkhya terms in the Middle Upanisads does not lead to the inference that Samkhya had developed only partially by that time and that its fuller form emerged after these Upanisads. Here also we have to recognise the possibility that Samkhya system had been formulated before the period of the Middle Upanisads, but only those principles and terms of Samkhya find mention which seemed to be relevant to the presentation in these Upanisadic texts. The history of Samkhya and the chronological evolution of its principles have to be determined independently, not necessarily on the basis of the presence or absence of references in the Upanisads.

4

4

Sämkhya Accounts in the Mokşadharmaparva

Introduction THERE is a lamentable dearth of original Sanskrit texts on Samkhya. Besides the Samkyakarika and the two texts of uncertain dates, the Tattvasamāsasūtra and Samkhyapravacanasūtra, we have only commentaries on these three to determine the nature of the Samkhya system. It is against this background that the chapters in the Mahabharata which expound Samkhya deserve attention.

Difficulties in Using Mahābharata Evidence But, the testimony of the Mahabharata chapters has not been duly utilised in presenting an account of Sämkhya principles, especially in tracing their historical development. Strangely, many competent scholars did not take this source very seriously. The main reason for this approach is the form of the presentation of these chapters. They have a popular character. They are narratives emboxed within the main story of the Epic. The literary presentation, on the part of the composer, with efforts at embellishment and effect, does not suit the exposition of philosophical principles. Expecting a more sober account befitting philosophy, some scholars have been prone not to treat the Mahabharata chapters on Samkhya as serious philosophies. The popular interest has resulted in the inclusion of passages in the text which are not amenable to philosophical analysis.

82 Retrieving Sämkhya History Viewed from the philosophical angle, many passages are incomprehensible. Besides, we find instances of inconsistencies in the exposition of principles. This applies not only to the various chapters attributed to different persons but also to the statements in the same chapter. A strong reason for scholars to ignore the Mahabharata testimony is the general view identifying the exposition of Samkhya in the Samkhyakarika as the exclusive account of Samkhya. Any deviation from it was not recognised as Samkhya and hence was not subjected to a respectful analysis. The account in the Mahabharata shows major differences with the Samkhyakarika, even on some very vital issues, to the extent of amounting to a negation of its fundamental characteristics.

Methodological Pleading by Johnston Methodologically, it is E.H. Johnston, who first argued for recognising the Mahabharata chapters as an authentic source of information for the principles of Samkhya. Very succinetly he offered the main arguments in favour of the reliability of the Mahabharata for the philosophical material in it. The teaching in the Epic is of a semipopular character and is not given with the precision of statement which would be expected of a formal treatise on philosophy. Further it covers a considerable period of time and emanates from many different writers and from several schools; naturally, therefore, there is discordance between different passages. But frequent ambiquity and lack of consistency do not prove that these epic descriptions are not to be taken seriously."1 Case of Epic Samkhya Scholars often speak of epic Samkhya, as if it has its distinctive features and a uniform character, as distinguished from other formulations of Samkhya principles. Some scholars recognised the bewildering differences in the various expositions of Samkhya in the Mahabharata, but try to identify features common in them, 1 Early Samkhya, p. 4.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparua 83

which they project as Epic Samkhya. This creates the impression that the Samkhya in the Mahabharata has a special character.

Samkhya Sections in the Mahābhārata Two well-known sections dealing with Samkhya principles in the Mahabharata are the Moksadharmaparva and the Gita. In dealing with Epic Samkhya scholars generally emphasise these two. A third section, which is only casually noticed in dealing with Epic Samkhya, is the Anugita. In the Mahabharata there are four main sections expounding Samkhya principles: (1) Sanatsujataparva in the Udyogaparva (V), chapters 41-45, (2) Bhagavad Gua in the Bhișmaparva (VI), chapters 25-42, (3) Moksadharmaparva in the Śantiparva (XII), chapters 174-365 and (4) Anugita in the Åsvamedhikaparva (XIV), chapters 16-51. Scholars, who do not take into account all the different portions in the Epic, give only a partial picture of its Samkhya evidence. As against this, some scholars club the evidence of the four sections together, as if they are one. It is often not realised that, though they form parts of the same text, they do not have a unified character. They are to be treated separately, because they were compositions of different periods. A.B. Keith," for example, mentions the differing dates assigned to the four sections. But, in presenting an account of the Samkhya philosophy in the epic, he refers to their testimony together. He brings out the varying shades of opinion on various philosophical issues, especially those considered by Samkhya. It would be better if the nature of Samkhya in the four sections is analysed separately and then a comparative and historical study is attempted. For the purposes of the present study we propose to concentrate on the exposition of Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva to analyse the views of different schools and teachers, and determine if we can speak of an Epic Samkhya as a distinct tradition.

Nature of Samkhya Accounts In the Moksadharmaparva chapters we find discussions about 2 A History of the Samkhya Philosophy, pp. 35-6

84 Retrieving Samkhya History various aspects of the subject of emancipation (moksa), including philosophical views about life and death, human bondage and the path ofliberation, creation and dissolution, material world and self. These are presented in the form of dialogues (samvada), narratives (akhyana) and religious poems (gita). Samkhya philosophical principles are often found mixed up with the general discussions on all these subjects, but without any specific reference to their Samkhya associations. Likewise, the account of adhytma in some chapters contains Samkhya views, without formal declaration to that effect. The portions dealing specifically with Samkhya principles as expounded by some sages or teachers are: chapters 182-8(dialogue between Bhrgu and Bharadvāja), chapter 194 (adhyatma by Bhisma), chapters 201-6 (dialogue between Manu and Brhaspati) chapters 210-17 (adhyatma by Krsna), chapters 218-19 (Pañcasikhavākya), chapter 299 (dialogue between Jaigīsavya and Asita-Devala), chapters 236, 247-55 (dialogue between Vyāsa and Śuka), chapters 268-70 (dialogue between Syūmaraśmi and Kapila), chapter 275 (dialogue between Narada and Asita-Devala), chapter 285 (adhyatma by Bhīsma), chapters 300-1 (Samkhya and Yoga by Bhisma) chapters 302-8 (dialogue between Vasistha and Karāla Janaka), chapters 310-18 (dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Daivarāti Janaka) and chapter 319 (dialogue between Pancasikha and Janaka).

Grouping of Samkhya Accounts We can place these accounts under several groups. First, we have chapters associated with the early Samkhya teachers Kapila and Pancasikha. Second, there are chapters relating to other teachers, Jaigisavya and Asita-Devala, whose Samkhya associations are known. Third, there are sages, Vasistha and Yajnavalkya, expounding Samkhya to historical kings. Fourth, we have exposition by mythical and legendary sages, Manu and Bhrgu. Fifth, there are accounts given by Vyasa, the author of the Mahabharata, and Bhisma, one of the principal characters in the Epic. Evidently, the accounts in the fourth group do not have a historical basis. Those of the fifth group raise problems when we consider Vyasa and Bhisma

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 85

as established Samkhya teachers. It is mostly in the case of the teachers in the first three groups that their position as expounders of Samkhya principles is confirmed.

Critical Edition on Moksadharmaparva V.M. Bedekar, who was associated with the work of the preparation of the critical edition of the Mahabharata by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, in the Introduction to the Santiparva has added a lengthy note in accordance with the approach of its editor S.K. Belvalkar. He treats the Moksadharmaparva, covering chapters 168 to 353 as a single unit attributing it to its redactor. In the conspectus he analyses the contents of all these chapters. He points out 'the astonishing variety of metaphysical, cosmological, ethical and theological teachings' contained in it. Often 'basically unconnected and disparate with one another', they do not constitute any consistent, homogeneous system', nor is these any attempt 'to represent them on the form of a synthesis or digest'. According to Bedekar, the redactor 'had sought to bring together, in one single section, different philosophical teachings and views, which had been sponsored by different teachers in different periods'. He does not make any attempt to determine any chronological sequence, either on the basis of the textual apparatus or a comparative analysis of the philosophical contents. According to him, the doctrines mostly 'belong to a period of thought-ferment whence free-lance thinkers were speculating and setting forth tentative ideas pertaining to a variety of philosophical questions'. They reflect a distinct stage in the evolution of the classical philosophical and religious systems such as the Samkhya, the Yoga, the Vedanta and the Pancaratra. Bedekar presents the philosophical thought of the Moksadharmaparva as a whole under five heads: (1) Cosmology and Metaphysics; the soul and moksa, (2) The Samkhya and the Yoga, (3) kala, svabhava and niyati, (4) Theistic ideas, and (5) Ethical ideas. The first receives a detailed treatment, in which fourteen dialogues have been analysed, without any distinction of the persons expounding them. They include many which proclaim to expound Samkhya and Yoga principles.

86 Retrieving Samkhya History Bedekar on Såmkhya in the Moksadharmaparva In his account of the Samkhya Bedekar notes chapters 211-12 (Pancasikha-Janaka dialogue), 222 (Jaigişavya), 228 (Vyāsa-Śuka dialogue), 261 (Kapila-Cow dialogue), 289 (Bhisma), 294 (Vasistha- Janaka dialogue), 337-8 (Vaisampayana). Bedekar points out that in the Moksadharmaparva Samkhya doctrines are specifically mentioned as such. They are by no means identical with the classical system of Samkhya. He underlines two different sets of passages, in one Samkhya appears merely as 'the way of knowledge characterised by some kind of logical reasoning, which ultimately leads to remuneration', and in the other, 'on account of the enumeration of various entities and principles which are represented as evolving from one another in a specific order, it seems to adumbrate the later classical system'. According to Bedekar, the accounts though betraying'an obvious tendency towards a gradual development into the classical Samkhya' differ from it in many respects: (1) They do not always emphasise an absolute and clear-cut dualism; they point at the apex one single principle or entity, (2) They speak of eight prakrtis in place of one, (3) The doctrine of tanmatras (subtle elements) is not yet developed, (4) The number, place and functions of the psychic faculties, manas, ahamkara and buddhi have not been fixed, and (5) The source of the five senses of knowledge has not been fixed. Bedekar depends on the present position of the text of the Moksadharmaparva. Though he notices two distinct and widely separated stands of Samkhya exposition, he seems to give all the credit to the redactor of the section. He does not make any effort to determine the views ofindividual thinkers and schools and underline their differences. Historically the persons expounding the principles belonged to different periods and their views are to be located in their respective periods and not in the times of the redactor. Within the limitations of the textual position and the uniformity and synthesis introduced, this approach is expected to project Samkhya expositions in the Moksadharmaparva in their proper form.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 87

Text Group Representing an Early Form G.J. Larson' analyses the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva, He attempts both chronological and comparative study. He follows E. Frauwallner and E.H. Johnston, who interpret a text-group in the Moksadharmaparva as representing the early form ofSamkhya. But, he agrees with J.A.B. van Buitenen in distinguishing two traditions of Samkhya in this text-group. In the Bombay edition (also Gita Press edition) of the Mahabharata there are three sets of chapters which have common passages: XII.194; XII.247-8; XII.285. In the critical edition they are reduced to two sets XII.187 and XII.239-40. In the critical edition chapter XII.187 includes both chapters XII.194 and XII.285 of the Bombay edition. The three sets of chapters are taken to be based on one common source, which is termed as Grund (Ur) text by Frauwallner. In this text-group van Buitenen' points out two distinct traditions on the basis of two usages of the term bhava as (a) sensations, qualities and condition, and (b) successive evolutes of buddhi. He himself presents a reconstituted text. Larson' carries the argument further. He divides the text-group into two. He terms the reconstituted text of J.A.B. van Buitenen as Text A and the remaining passages as Text B. Text A uses guna or bhava as referring to varying levels of evolution, whereas in Text B they signify moral or psychic condition or state. According to Frauwallner, this text-group represents theoriginal formulation of Samkhya characterised by the absence of an evolutionary doctrine and a guna theory. Johnston also sees in it the original theory of guna or bhava as psychical qualities. For an early date of this text-group Frauwallner points out that it is highly corrupt. Larson adds the argument of the absence of ahamkara for

3. The Classical Samkhya, pp. 108-27. 4. "Studies in Samkhya",JJAOS, Vol. 76(1957), pp. 153-7, L Rocher (ed.), Studies in Indian Literature and Philosophy, pp. 43-52. 5. Op. cit., pp. 110-13.

88 Retrieving Samkhya History

the early date of the text-group. He describes Text A and Text B in this text-group as proto-Samkhya traditions.

Other Groups

Larson6 describes the remaining accounts by clubbing them together and listing varying views on different points. He further points out a mechanical difference in a set of passages which are quite unintelligible and probably represent aberrant speculations. The points, on which he records divergent views, are: listing of Samkhya tattuas, the meaning of the term guna, the ultimate material reality, the nature of self or Self, the association with Yoga, and the emphasis on knowledge or 'knowing'. Larson has not attempted to find a system in the accounts of the varying principles and to attribute them to a specific tradition, school or teacher. This task has been partially attempted by P. Chakravarti.7 He holds that the Mahabharata records various forms of Samkhya. He identifies them on the basis of their mutual inconsistencies and their differences with the classical or orthodox Samkhya of Isvarakrsna. In this connection he refers to the expositions by Pancasikha,"Asita-Devala,Bhişma,1° Vasistha1 and Yājnavalkya 12 He tries to note the similarities as also differences which their principles have with the orthodox Samkhya. He regards the Epic chapters as representing the atheistic school of Samkhya.

6. Op. cit., pp. 113-27. 7. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 42- 64 8. XII.219. Chakravarti points out that the account in Mbh., XII.321.96- 112 (= Gita Prees edn. XII.320.78-134), attributed by Hopkins, The Great Epic of India, p. 172 and Keith, The Samkhya System, p. 47 to Pancasikha, actually records the views of Sulabha. 9. XII.275. 10. XII.300-1. 11. XII.302-8. 12. XII.310-18

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 89

Consideration in Evaluating Epic Samkhya Scholars, who speak of Epic Samkhya, face serious problems, when they attempt to define its nature and spell out its characteristic features in terms of principles common to the various conflicting accounts. Their formulations are conditioned by their views on four vītal preliminary issues. The first point relates to the evaluation of the exposition of Samkhya principles in the Samkhyakarika. Some earlier scholars identified Samkhya with its form in this text. They consider it to be the original Samkhya. Modern scholars modify the position by describing it as representing the orthodox Samkhya or the Classical Samkhya. This leaves open the possibility that there were other formulations of Samkhya principles which differed from that of the Sämkhyakårika. If we assume that Samkhya means the principles as expounded by Isvarakrsna, then our approach to the Epic Samkhya will be conditioned significantly. This point is of vital importance, with far-reaching implications for the history of Samkhya. If the original Samkhya is the same as expounded in the Samkhyakarika, then the accounts differing from it are to be considered as aberrations not deserving any respect for representing Samkhya. This does not leave any scope for the Sämkhya principles changing and evolving in course of centuries. This will be inimical to the need for a serious, critical analysis of the Moksadharmaparva chapters. Scholars, who regard the Samkhya in the Samkhyakarika to be the orthodox Samkhya, accept that there were deviations from this exposition and, even when new and conflicting principles were propounded, the earlier system continued to enjoy respectability as the authentic version. On this basis the Moksadharmaparva accounts will be interpreted as modifications mooted in the later history of Samkhya, which were rejected and could not find a place in the sober exposition of Samkhya philosophy. The approach to the Moksadharmaparva accounts is significantly altered when the Samkhyakarika is taken to record

90 Retrieving Samkhya History

the Classical Samkhya. This view admits that Samkhya was not set and fixed from the very beginning; it changed and grew in course of time. This means that passages, in which Samkhya exposition differs from that in the Samkhyakarika, belong to different stages in the growth of Samkhya, before it received a standard and classical formulation. Such an approach will evaluate the Moksadharmaparva chapters as recording the rich divergence of views, long before Iśvarakrsna gave them a standard form. The third consideration, which conditions the critical assessment of the Moksadharmaparva accounts of Samkhya, is the view about the nature of the Mahabharata as a text and the date of its composition. If the Mahabharata is taken to be a unified text composed by a single writer, all its chapters, including those in the Moksadharmaparva, will be evaluated as his creation. In that case the Samkyha accounts in the Moksadharmaparva will be placed in the times of its author Vyasa, and the Samkhya teachers and their expositions will then be dated before the composition of the Mahabharata. But, modern scholars generally agree that all the chapters in the text did not form part ofit originally. It has acquired its present form as a result of accretions made over a long period of time. The Santiparva, including the Moksadharmaparva, is taken to have been affected by the insertion of new material. On this ground the Samkhya teachers and their expositions cannot be said to have belonged to the times of the original composition of the Mahabharata; they are to be regarded as later than the times of the characters of the Epic, but earlier than their incorporation in the text.

A fourth consideration to be kept in mind is the fact that all the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva are not uniformly of the same date. This is indicated by the critical edition of the text and is also borne out by the internal evidence of the accounts. Serious problems arise when principles expounded in different periods are processed together as if belonging to one single system. It is in the light of these points that one has to examine the modern studies of Epic Samkhya.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparua 91

Epic Samkhya the Original Samkhya

GARBE R. Garbe, who holds Samkhya to have been the creation of one single mind and in vogue before the Epic took its present shape,13 regards Epic Samkhya to be merely a popularisation and contamination of the true Samkhya and far removed from the precision and the clarity of the true system." Keith and some other scholars criticise the view that the true Samkhya was the creation of a single mind and hold that it was the result of a slow process of development. The true Samkhya as a complete whole did not exist before or in the early period of the Epic.

DAHLMANN - EPIC SAMKHYA POST-UPANISADIC AND PRE-CLASSICAL According to J. Dahlmann, the epic, from the beginning, had its present character as esssentially a book of customary law and usage illustrated by its tales. Thus, the epic is to be viewed as a unified text of great antiquity expressing a unitarian philosophy. Dahlmann holds that the epic preserves the original character of the Samkhya and, in its form and expression, is almost identical with the Samkhya in the Sämkhyakārika. Originally Samkhya was theistic and was the development of the unsystematic teachings of the early Upanisads.15 It is a science of the Brahman (Brahma-vidya), based on logic (anviksiki), though never abandoning its traditional foundations. It investigates the number of principles and their evolution from the Absolute. It accepts the absolute and impersonal Brahman, but denies any personal deity. It recognises a material nature as the source of the manifold empiric reality, though which the Absolute becomes multiplied. According to Dahlmann, the logical theory of the Brahman in the Epic Samkhya gave up

13 R. Garbe (ed.), Samkhya Satra Vrtti, Introduction, p. iv, 14 Die Samkhya Philosophie, pp. 54-9. 15 Die Samkhya Philosophie als Naturlehre und Erlosungstehre, Berlin. 1902, pp.1-19.

92 Retrieving Samkhya History

Brahman to become the Classical Samkhya and, by stressing the unreality of the world, led to the illusion theory of Sankara. Keith16 very aptly points out the basic mistake in Dahlmann's analysis when he says that 'the attempt to hold that the epic is a unity and that it teaches a unitarian philosophy is one which offends every canon of criticism and common sense, and the main doctrine that the atheistic Samkhya is really a doctrine which accepts the Brahman, but denies the personal deity of the Yoga, is a tour de force'. It is generally believed that the Mahabharata was not a unified text from the very beginning; it acquired its present form as a result of accretions from time to time. Hence, all the views expressed in different parts of the text cannot be attributed to one single author. Further, it will not be appropriate to single out any particular exposition as representative of the philosophical views of the text. The Mahabharata especially the Moksadharmaparva, contains several accounts of Samkhya, which are so much conflicting that their differences cannot be ironed out to present one standard exposition. Dahlmann's view that the Epic Samkhya represents a development of the principles in the early Upanisads underlines similarities with some but not all of the expositions of Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva. The similarities do not necessarily imply that one account was indebted to another. Possibly they were breathing a common intellectual atmosphere. The Mahabharata refers to the expositions as ancient narratives. Though the insertion of the relevant chapters in the Mahabharata occurred much later, the persons participating in the dialogues can be historically identified and are to be located in the times of the Upanisads. There is no wide chronological gap between these persons and the Upanisads to necessitate the acceptance of the early Upanisads as the source of Epic Samkhya. Historically Dahlmann is correct when he places Epic Samkhya before the Classical Samkhya, but the process of development is not so simple as Dahlmann suggests it to be. Likewise, the view that

16. Op. cit., p. 56.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 93

Sankara's theory ofillusion resulted from emphasising the unreality of the world in the epic Samkhya is an over simplification of the issues. The antecedents of Sankara's Advaita Vedanata are well known and have their own line of evolution.

Hopkins - Samkhya Predominance in the Epic E.W. Hopkins, who appreciates the historical problems about the original nature of the Mahabharata text and its later expansion, is in a better position to analyse the philosophical accounts in it. He does not believe that any single philosophical system is uniformly presented in the Mahabharata. He does not argue that the traditional six systems of philosophy are represented in the Epic. He, however, traces six shades of philosophical ideas. They are not established philosophical systems. They have their distinctive character, but, atthe same time, have similarities also. The six systems emphasised by Hopkins are (a) Vedic orthodoxy, (b) Brahmanism (the doctrine of Brahman), without, and sometimes, with the illusion theory, (c) the Samkhya, (d) the Yoga, (f) and (g) the Pasupatas and the Bhägavatas adopting a good deal of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy.1 In this philosophical analysis we can easily see the primacy of Samkhya along with Yoga. Leaving aside Vedic orthodoxy, the remaining five reflect Samkhya affiliation. But significantly there is no common feature of Samkhya in the associated systems. Samkhya and its influence assumes different forms, so that one cannot speak of a uniform system of epic Samkhya. Here besides the exposition of Samkhya and Yoga in their separate forms, we find Samkhya-Yoga philosophy being adopted by the two theistic sects, the Pasupatas (the worshippers of Siva) and Bhagavatas (the worshippers of Visnu). Even the system of Brähmanism, though advocating the principle of Brahman as the Absolute at the top, mentions Samkhya principles at the lower stratum. Thus, there is no case of a unitary epic Samkhya in the analysis offered by Hopkins. Hopkins1 was the first to point out that the three sets of chapters represent the three versions of one text. 17 Op cit 18. Op.cit

94 Retrieving Samkhya History Oldenberg - Developed Pre-classical Samkhya H. Oldenberg, who is of the view that Samkhya, like all other systems, is the product of development over a long period of time, regards the Moksadharmaparva to represent a developed form of Samkhya-like speculations, more developed than the pre-classical Samkhya of the Upanisads, but not as yet having the full classical form. This section of the Mahabharata enumerates twenty-five categories, the twenty-fifth comprising of the double notion of the individual purusas and the cosmic purusa. The twenty-sixth category refers to the released purusa as contrasted with the bound purusa.19 The suggestion of Oldenberg that the twenty-fifth category includes both the individual spirits and the absolute spirit is not plausible. If such a distinction was made by the Samkhya, it would have been maintained by enumerating the two categories of spirits separately in the list oftattuas. Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva is described as including twenty-five categories, whereas Yoga is said to recognise a twenty-sixth category. Thistwenty-sixth category of Yoga in the Moksadharmaparva is different from Isvara of the Yogasütra. It, thus, seems that the Moksadharmaparva associates the absolute spirit with the Samkhya-Yoga and not with Samkhya proper. The Samkhya, represented in the Epic, as argued by Keith, is a Samkhya without an absolute.

Keith - Genuine Earlier Samkhya A.B. Keith maintains that the Epic contains many kinds of speculation, including a dominant theistic tinge along with some Vedantic ideas." According to him, some later portions of the Moksadharmaparva are the earliest evidence for a full Samkhya system, but without some of the minor classical doctrines.21 He

19. "Zur Geschichte der Samkhya-philosophie", Nachrichten von der koniglichen Gessellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse aus dem Jahre, 1917, pp. 218-20, 235- 40. 20 Op. cil .. pp. 36-7. 21 Ibid, p. 65.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 95

summarises his findings about Samkhya in the Epic: It is not a blurred version of the classical Samkhya, nor is there any reason to believe that the classical Samkhya had already been excogitated by this period. On the other hand. it is not a Samkhya which recognises an absolute, and merely denies a personal creator: it is, aprat from efforts made by the epic to torture it into more orthodox pantheism, a system which denies an absolute, and asserts instead a multiplicity of individual souls, but in the epic ... it is still without some of the more characteristics of its minor doctrines, and has not achieved the completeness and ... clarity of outline which mark its classical form.22 Keith is justified in recognising the epic Samkhya to be a genuine exposition of Samkhya principles representing a stage of development much before the times of the Samkhyakarika. But, in his final analysis he does not underline the conflicting accounts of Samkhya in the epic. He ignores the discordant details and variations presented by the individual teachers and interprets Epic Samkhya to represent a stage in the development of the Samkhya which includes a set and definite exposition of principles.

Dasgupta - Schools of Samkhya S.N. Dasgupta does not enter into a detailed analysis of the Samkhya evidence in the Mahabharata. He, however, notes that the Epic refers to more than the one school of Samkhya. According to him,"Mahabharata, XII. 318 mentions three schools ofSamkhya: those who admitted twenty-four categories, those who admitted twenty-five, and those who admitted twenty-six categories. He takes the first school to be represented by Pancasikha in Mahabharata, XII.219. He holds that the system of Samkhya Pancasikha sketches is the same as that of Caraka and that doctrines similar to this school are referred to in some other chapters, Mahābharata, XII.203, 204. 22 H. Oldenberg, op. cit .. pp. 64-5 23 A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1. p. 217.

96 Retrieving Samkhya History Dasgupta regards the second school admitting twenty-five categories as being the well-known orthodox Samkhya system. The third school admitted as the twenty-sixth category a supreme being in addition to purusa. Dasgupta's analysis is sketchy and incomplete, based only on four chapters of the Mahabharata. This gives a very partial picture of Samkhya in the Epic. There is much more diversity of views suggesting many more schools. Dasgupta blacks out the rich variety of Samkhya accounts in the Epic. Dasgupta associates Pancasikha with the school admitting twenty-four categories and brackets him with Caraka. No doubt, there are significant similarities in the expositions of Samkhya by Pañcasikha and Caraka. But, Pancasikha is regarded by Iśvarakrsņa himself as having originally expounded the Samkhya which he presents in the Samkhyakarikā. Dasgupta interprets the reference to twenty-five categories as standing for the classical Samkhya. It is generally believed that the classical Samkhya was formulated later than the Moksadharma- parva. The mention of twenty-five categories alone does not mean the formulation of classical Samkhya. There are many other distinguishing features of the classical Samkhya. These have to be confirmed in any account of Samkhya; they cannot be assumed by a mere reference to twenty-five categories. Dasgupta2 points out that the third school admitting twenty- six categories agrees with the orthodox Yoga school. He holds it to be the form of Samkhya advocated in the Mahabharata. This is a significant point, but has not been elaborated by Dasgupta. He does not demonstrate whether other chapters in the Mahabharata also subscribe to this view. In the Epic a reference to the twenty-sixth category is made by Vasistha25 and Yajnavalkya.25 There is no reason why this view is to be regarded as typical of Samkhya in the Mahābhārata.

24. S.N. Dasgupta, op cit. 25. Mbh., XII. 308.7.7, 11, 16-17, 20-1 26. Ibid., XII.318.72, 77, 80.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 97

The basic defect in Dasgupta's view is his tracing a reference to three schools of Samkhya in Mbh, XII.318." We have discussed elsewhere the passages which are supposed to contain a reference to three Samkhya schools admitting respectively twenty-four, twenty-five and twenty-six categories. The passages actually refer to the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth categories. This does not mean that there were achools believing in twenty- four, twenty-five and twenty-six categories. What we have here is an account ofa Samkhya school which admits twenty-six categories; the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth categories are explained in course of the exposition of twenty-six categories. Dasgupta says that 'the schools of Samkhya of twenty-four and twenty-five categories are here denounced as unsatisfactory', But the relevant passages do not discuss any of these supposed schools. What they denounce is the limited knowledge possessed by the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth categories, as contrasted with that by the twenty-sixth category.

Merit of Mahabharata Evidence

JOHNSTON Johnston recognises the merits of the Mahabharata evidence for the early history of Samkhya. Of the four groups of texts, on which he depends for this, the epic texts are the second, placed after the Upanisads but before the Buddhacarita and the Carakasamhita, with the classical texts of the Yogasutra and the Samkhyakarika belonging to the fourth. In the epic group he mentions the Anugita and the last six chapters in the Gitd as being later. In the Moksadharmaparva he admits earlier and later portions, the earlier ones being similar in thought to the first twelve chapters in the Gltd and to Asvaghosa's Buddhacarita. He postulates five phases in the development of Samkhya speculation in terms of the principles. He does refer to the phases represented in the Upanisads, but does not

27. He possibly relies on XII.318.72 28 See infru chapters 5 and 10.

98 Retrieving Samkhya History spell out the stage recorded by the Epic. He does not analyse the various schools of Samkhya in the Epic, except referring to the views of Pancasikha. It seems that he does not take the Epic accounts to refer to one particular stage but to contain evidence for the first-four stages. Thus, Johnston does not assign one unified character to the exposition of Samkhya in the Epic. FRAUWALLNER For the history of Samkhya E. Frauwallner" considers the Epic evidence to be more relevant and authentic than that of the Upanisads, Buddhacarita and Carakasamhita. He admits that it is impossible to sort out earlier portions from the later ones in many cases. He regards the Grund (Ur) text, which formed the basis of three different sets of chapters in the Moksadharmaparva, to represent the first stage in the history of Samkhya. According to him, this extremely old tradition originated before the writing of the Moksadharmaparva. The second stage of speculation is reflected in the passages recording the questions of Suka. Frauwallner has emphasised the importance of the Epic accounts. But, this has led to an overemphasis on this source of evidence and the exclusion of others. He has not given proper allowance to the process of revision and the uniformity introduced by the composer of these chapters. He has not cared to determine the nature of Samkhya system before the stage represented by the Grund (Ur) text.

J.A.B. VAN BUITENEN J.A.B. van Buitenen makes improvement upon Frauwallner's studies. He bases himself on the Epic chapters analysed by Frauwallner. He demonstrates that the development of Samkhya was incredibly complex. In the concerned chapters he reconstructs two passages. One describes an early horizontal theory using bhava to mean moral or psychical quality The second uses bhava to mean

29. History of Indian Philosophy, pp. 379-81.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 99

guna or 'the tried in which rajas figures' and implies a horizontal theory of evolution in which buddhi successively evolves into manas, senses and elements. van Buitenen does not consider all the various accounts of Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva.

Nature and Complexity Evidence- Samkhya-Yoga School

CHAKRAVARTI The analysis of Samkhya material in the Mahabharata offered by Chakravarti and Larson mark definite improvement in appreciating the true nature of the evidence and its complexities. Chakravarti recognises that there are many forms of Samkhya in the Mahabharata, which are not always consistent and do not fully tally, with the Samkhya of Isvarakrsna. He discusses the different accounts of Samkhya, pointing out their special features and differences with the Samkhyakarika version. He admits that the Epic does not always offer the same exposition in the different chapters, but notes two common points in them, namely, representing the atheistic school as devoid of belief in a supreme God, and describing the organs as material objects. Chakravarti shows that the Epic presupposes the existence of the Samkhya literature. According to him, the Gita reflects the full-fledged Samkhya. Chakravarti treats the accounts of Samkhya in the Epic as the expositions of the different schools of Samkhya in those days. To gain wide popularity the Epic incorporated the sects and systems prevalent, including the many schools in which Samkhya was divided. Chakravarti admits that some chapters in the Epic, XI1.301 for instance, do not represent the true Samkhya view. Here the sectarian interest is predominant. Terms and tenets of the Samkhya are used, but Nårayana is mentioned as the Supreme Lord, from whom proceed creation and destruction. Such expositions cannot be regarded as Samkhya accounts. Chakravarti views them as the contamination of the proper Samkhya.

100 Retrieving Samkhya History Chakravarti shows that the Epic records a Samkhya school which subseribes to the doctrines of Brahman. Accounts mentioning atwenty-sixth category belong to this type. According to Chakravarti, this is not the doctrine of pure Samkhya. He mentions it as the Samkhya-Yoga school of the Epic. It represents a distinguishing feature of the Samkhya accounts in the epic and marks a significant stage in the history of Samkhya. Here Samkhya and Yoga go together and form a single unit. LARSON We have already noted the main points in the treatment of Samkhya chapters in the Moksadharmaparva offered by Larson. He also argues for a Samkhya-Yoga school being represented in the Epic. But, his interpretation of the distinguishing features of this school differs from that of Chakravarti. He underlines passages which characterise Samkhya and Yoga separately as against those which emphasise their oneness. According to him, Samkhya emphasises knowledge as the best means of salvation. Yoga, generally treated as the method of salvation by 'doing', is used here in the sense of'a disciplined course of action'. Samkhya-Yoga is a tradition of Yoga which emphasises the discipline ofknowledge. According to Larson, this school claimed an independent position apart from the other tradition of undifferentiated Samkhya and Yoga. It emphasised the knowing of the principles and of the distinction between the field and the field-knower (self) more than practice and meditation, and was interested in the enumeration of tattvas. Evaluation of Moksadharmaparva Evidence DIVERSITY OF EXPOSITIONS Thus, we see that the exposition of Samkhya in the Epic is not of one set type. We cannot identify features which characterise all the accounts. There are several expositions which have their own individuality and differ from one another or many points. The Moksadharmaparva section contains a collection of expositions of several schools and individual teachers.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 101

PRESUPPOSES VAST SĀMKHYA LITERATURE The Epic presupposes the existence of a vast and varied Samkhya literature. It specifically refers to the vastness of the existing Samkhya literature. It gives a long list of Samkhya teachers from whom Visvavasu claims to have learnt Samkhya. Besides a few mythical names, it mentions a number of sages and individuals. It discusses in detail the principles expounded by some teachers. An analysis of the chapters helps identify some of the Samkhya schools.

REPRESENT MORE THAN ONE STAGE

It would not be correct to take all these accounts to represent one particular stage in the history of Samkhya. Though they are known from the Moksadharmaparva, which fixes a lower limit to their date, they all originally did not belong to one and the same period. They refer to different periods. Such as a long period, with so many divergent schools and teachers, if to be treated together, has to be divided into sub-phases. There is no one common label to cover all the various shades of Samkhya accounts.

NO CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE The chapters do not maintain a chronological sequence. They are not incorporated in the order in which the events recorded in them possibly occurred. To illustrate, the chapters in which Vasistha imparts a knowledge of Samkhya to Karala Janaka are placed earlier than those in which Yajnavalkya instructs Daivarāti Janaka, though Karala Janaka came long after Daivarati Janaka.

EARLY PERIOD OF SAMKHYA The Samkhya accounts refer to an early period, in any case several centuries before the incorporation of the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva. This is admitted by the author of these chapters, when he refers to the accounts of the dialogue expounding Samkhya principles as ancient narratives (itihasam puratanam). It is also to be noted that, within the structure of the main story of

102 Retrieving Samkhya History the Epic, the sages and teachers presenting Samkhya principles are made contemporaries of historical persons who belong to the Brahmana-Upanisad period. They are in some cases connected with Pancasikha and Jaigisavya as contemporaries, senior or junior.

PHILOSOPHICALLY EARLIER Philosophically also these accounts are to be dated much earlier than the Samkhya of Isvarakrsna. They differ from the Samkhyakarika version on many a vital point and imply a long course of evolution to reach the later form. It is clear that the author of the chapters had no knowledge of the characteristic details of the later version. Further, the Moksadharmaparva chapters breathe an atmosphere of a very early phase in the development of philosophical thought. It is only the Samkhya and the Yoga which are named here. The other systems of philosophy are conspicuous by their absence. They do not seem to have acquired their separate identity as systems of philosophy. Samkhya and Yoga alone dominate the philosophical horizon. Even those philosophical accounts, which do not claim to expound Samkhya and Yoga, are predominantly Samkhya in form and principles.

SIMILARITIES WITH UPANISADS These accounts of Samkhya have similarities with the philosophical views in the Upanisads on many an important point. This has led some scholars to trace the origin of Samkhya to Upanisadic speculations. We have elsewhere3 argued that Samkhya is not the lineal development of Upanisadic philosophy. Samkhya had its own independent origin and course of development. Besides similarities in respect of the categories and their evolution, we find resemblance between the two about the general and fundamental approach of adhyatma, belief in Brahman, and the method of salvation for the individual soul. It is not a case of one borrowing from the other. The ideas were the common features ofthe intellectual

30. See supra, chapter 3.

Samkhya Accounts in the Moksadharmaparva 103

life of the Brahmana-Upanisad period and are to be noticed also in the Samkhya accounts of the period.

STRATIFICATION OF VIEWS We may not be able to frame a chronological chart of the Samkhya accounts in the Epic and to determine the various stages in the development of their principles. A criterion, followed by some scholars, is the extent of the resemblance of an account with the Samkhyakārika version. But, this cannot be a definite pointer. There are some indications of earlier and later strata in the Samkhya accounts. The similarities in three chapters have been interpreted by Frauwallner to refer to an earlier Grund (Ur) text. Following van Buitenen, Larson has distinguished two texts, A and B, even in it. Text A represents philosophical principles of an early date, whereas Text B records principles of a later phase. Likewise, accounts of Samkhya under the name of Samkhya-Yoga also refer to a later period. In an early phase Samkhya and Yoga were undifferentiated. Later they started developing in their own line. This Samkhya school held that Samkhya and Yoga are one and are not to be treated as separate. It emphasised the method of knowing' more than that of meditation and 'doing'. FORM AND STYLE OF PRESENTATION A seriouss problem arises on account of the form and style of these chapters. They have the same structure of dialogue introduced by Bhisma. The versification and style also have a common characteristic. Clearly the accounts are not presented in the form in which the individual teachers expounded them, When and by whom they were included in the Epic cannot be determined. It is generally suggested that they were incorporated at different periods. This does not seem to be very likely. The close similarity in their form and style would indicate that, though the accounts look back to the periods of their original formulation, they were included at one and the same period. In evaluating these accounts we have to give due allowance to the element ofuniformity, sometimesinvolving

104 Retrieving Samkhya History repetition in verses and expressions, caused by the revising hand of the composer of the chapters.

Conclusion

Thus, we can say that the Samkhya represented in the Epic accounts was genuine Samkhya in a period long before that of the Samkhyakarika. It cannot be dubbed as the vulgarisation of Samkhya or its garbled version. It was as authentic as the later Samkhya system. Ifthe Samkhyakarika account is considered to be Classical Samkhya, then the Epic accounts will be pre-Classical Samkhya. But, this should not lead to a misconceived notion that these accounts are undeveloped Samkhya. This judgement arises from the assumption that the Samkhyakarikd represents the true Sāmkhya.

5

Yājnavalkya - An Independent Sāmkhya Tradition

Introduction

THE lists of Samkhya teachers found in the commentaries on the Samkhyakarika do not contain the name of Yajnavalkya. The other Samkhya sources also do not mention his name as a Samkhya teacher. It is only in the Moksadharmaparva section of the Śantiparva of the Mahabharata, chapters 310 to 318,1 that Yajnavalkya is represented as a Samkhya teacher. The Brhadāranyaka Upanișad (I1.4.1; III.5.1) mentions him as a great philosopher, but there is no reference to his being an authority on Sāmkhya. The absence of the name of Yajnavalkya in the lists appended by the commentators on the Samkhyakarika is not surprising. These commentators give the names of Samkhya teachers who belonged to the period of the gap between Panacasikha and Isvarakrsna. But, as we have demonstrated below, Yajnavalkya flourished before Pancasikha, hence he is omitted by the commentators.

Yājnavalkya in Mokșadharmaparva The exposition of Samkhya by Yajnavalkya in the Moksa-

We have consulted the Gita Press, Gorakhpur edition of the Mahabharata.

106 Retrieving Samkhya History

dharmaparva has not received due importance in the modern studies of Samkhya. Even those scholars, who have analysed the Epic material on Samkhya, have not always cared to notice the distinctive character of the Samkhya principles expounded by Yajnavalkya. P. Chakravarti2 has analysed the chapters presenting the Samkhya principles of Yajnavalkya. But he concentrates on a few points having parallels with the Samkhya account of Vasistha. The chapters in the Moksadharmaparva which contain Yajnavalkya views are chapters 310-18. The main principles noticed by U.V. Shastri are those laid down in Mbh., XII. 310.10-18; XII.313.15, 17-28; XII.315.3, 11; XII.318.55, 72-79. The passages emphasised by A.P. Mishra' are Mbh., XII.310.10-25; XII.313. 16- 28; XII.314.5-12;XII.318.77,80.He reproduces all these verses, but does not analyse them to present the principles. The account of Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva has an interesting structural feature. It is emboxed within the general framework of the narrative of the Mahabharata in which Bhisma, lying on the bed of arrows in the war, replies to questions raised by Yudhisthira. Yudhisthira seeks to be enlightened about the tattua which is eternal, indestructible and unchanging, and is free from dharma and adharma, all doubts, birth and death, and merit and sin. In his reply Bhisma narrates the ancient account of the dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Daivarāti Janaka. In this presentation, Yajñavalkya inserts an account of his own exposition to Visvävasu, the Gandharva King. In chapter 310 Yajnavalkya proposes to expound the highest knowledge, particularly the Samkhya. He mentions eight prakrtis - avyakta, mahat, ahamkāra and prthivī, vāyu, ākāsa, apa and jyoti (agni). Then he enumerates sixteen vikaras, which are rooted in the five elements (mahabhutas). Of these, the five sensations of sabda,sparsa, rüpa, rasa and gandha, along with the five senses of

2 Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 49-53. 3. Samkhyadarsana ka Itihasa, pp. 592-3. We have transferred the references to the Gita Press edition 4. Samkhyadarsana ki Aitihasika Parampard, pp. 150-2.

Yajnavalkya - An Independent Samkhya Tradition 107

actions, are termed as visesas, whereas the five senses of knowledge (buddhindriyas) are called savisesas. Manas is called the sixteenth vikāra. Yajnavalkya arranges the evolution of tattvas from prakrti under nine sargas: pradhanika (mahat from avyakta), buddhyatmaka (ahamkara from mahat), ahamkarika (manas from ahamkāra), mānasa (mahābhūtas from manas), bhautika (five subjects from mahabhtas), bahucintatmaka (five sense-organs), aindriyaka (five karmendriyas), arjavaka (prāna, samāna, vyāna and udana flowing upwards) and again arjavaka (uyāna, udāna and apana flowing downward). In chapter 311 Yajnavalkya mentions the time span (kāla- samkhya) in terms of day and night of avyakta, mahat, ahamkara, manas and subjects (visaya). He describes the process of creation. The pratibhuddha (the Supreme Consciousness) created vegetation (osadhi) in the beginning. He created Brahma from the Golden Egg (hiranyanda). Brahma created earth, sky and heaven and four putras (buddhi, ahamkara, manas and citta), who were the pitrs of the pitrs (creators of the panca-mahabhūtas). The devas (sense- organs) are the sons of the pitrs (five mahabhutas). The entire movable and immovable world is covered by the devas. The paramesthin (ahamkara) creates the five elements (bhūtas). The sabda, spara, rūpa, rasa and gandha are the special subjects (visesa) of the mahabhūtas. Yajnavalkya says that manas is the foremost among the indriyas. Chapter 312 describes the process of dissolution (samhara). It is initiated by the eternal avyakta Brahman propelling the personified god ahamkara who appears as the sun (aditya) and burns all animate and inanimate objects on the earth. The earth is engulfed by water which is destroyed by kalagni. Kalāgni, vayu, akāsa, manas, ahamkāra and buddhi follow in succession, the succeeding one swallowing the preceding one. The eternal (ananta) supreme (isvara), Brahman (mahatma) assimilates buddhi. At the end He alone remains. In chapter 313 several items are listed under the classification of adhyatma, adhibhūta and adhidaivata. The prakrti is said to create

108 Retrieving Sämkhya History

many gunas (qualities) of a purusa (individual) which are grouped into three: sattua, rajas and tamas. Chapter 314 brings out the difference between purusas characterised by the three gunas. It also envisages a combination of two or three gunas. Prakrti is acetana, but when the parama tattva subsists in it, it creates and destroys. Janaka asks significant questions to which Yajnavalkya replies in the following chapters. Chapter 315 brings out the difference between prakrti and purușa. The auyakta prakrti is characterised by guņas. The purușa is nitya and aksara. On account of ignorance purusa gets associated with gunas. Puruşa is called sarga-dharma, yoga-dharma, prakrti- dharma, bija-dharma and guna-dharma for considering itself the kartā (doer) of sarga, yoga, prakrti, bija and guna. Puruşa is kevala (unassociated with prakrti. Though nitya and avyakta, purusa is described as anitya and vyakta, because of its association with prakrti. Prakrti is one, but purusa is plural. With the help of apt analogies the difference as also the relationship between the two are brought out. This account is referred to as the samkhya-jñana. Chapter 316 presents the yoga-jnana. It says that there is no knowledge (jñana) like Samkhya, and no power (bala) like Yoga. The two are not separate; they are one. In Yoga the prana (rudra) has the main importance. Controlling it, one can move in all the ten directions. Yoga is characterised by eight gunas, it leads to eight subtle qualities (gunas). Yoga is of two kinds-dhāranā is saguna and prānāyama is nirguna. Practical advice is given for controlling the senses: through a process of controlling mana, ahamkara and buddhi one is to meditate on the auyaya Brahma. In beautiful verses the characteristic qualities of a yogt are described. Chapter 317 describes the fate of the soul according to the part of the body from which it leaves. It mentions the aristas (prognostics) or indications of coming death and advises the course of action to be followed by a yogi. In chapter 318 Yajnavalkya relates how he acquired knowledge through the blessings of Surya. He refers to his dialogue with Visvavasu, the Gandharva, who was expert in the knowledge of the

Yajnavalkya - An Independent Samkhya Tradition 109

essence of the Veda (vedāntajnanakovida). Visvāvasu asked him twenty-four questions relating to the Veda and a twenty-fifth on the anviksikt. The twenty-four questions related to the meaning of jnāna, jňeya, jňātā, ajña, ka, tapā, atapá, sūrya, atisūrya, vidyā, auidyā, vedya, avedya, cala, acala, apürva, akşaya and kşaya. Yajnavalkya claims to have churned in his mind in the Upanisad with its auxiliary parts and the anviksikt. He explains the twenty- four terms as referring to the dichotism between purusa and prakrti. He refers to this knowledge as anviksikt, which leads to emancipation. He who does not understand the vedya (the auyakta) has not studied the Veda. A knowledge of purusa and prakrti saves a man from the cycle of birth and death. Giving up the Vedic rites, which are perishable, one should follow the ever-lasting dharma.One should realise the twenty-sixth tattva (sadvimsam). The twenty- fifth tattva (pancavimsaka) is not different from the twenty-sixth. Explaining the essence of knowledge to Visvāvasu, Yajnavalkya says that the twenty-fifth tattva knows prakrti, but prakrti does not know the twenty-fifth tattva. Prakrti is also designated as pradhana. The twenty-fifth does not realise the twenty-sixth. The twenty- sixth sees the twenty-fifth and the twenty-fourth. When the twenty- fifth realises its separateness from the twenty-fourth, it realises the twenty-sixth. The twenty-fifth and the twenty-sixth are not different. Yajnavalkya refers to these three as apratibuddha, budhyamana and buddha. Concluding his exposition Yajnavalkya says that moksa is possible through jniana, which should be received from a person of any varna, because, being born of Brahma, all varnas are brāhmana, The entire world is Brahma.

Samkhya as expounded by Yajnavalkya We find several distinctive features in this account of Samkhya. P. Chakravarti" points out its principles which tally with the traditional Samkhya: prakrti is constituted of the gunas; it cannot transcend them; it is devoid of consciousness; being presided over the

5. Op.cit., pp. 51-2.

110 Retrieving Samkhya History purușa, it creates and destroys. Yajnavalkya/describes the characteristics of the gunds! He brings out the difference between purusa and prakrti; thetwo exist together but are distinct categories. Similarities on some points are bound to occur in different expositions of. Samkhya, in spite of the difference in the approaches of the teachers and the distance of time and space separating them. In the Moksadharmaparya account Yajnavalkyaproposes. to expound Samkhyaprinciples and this unequivocal testimony is to be accepted? The 'similarities, which have been pointed out, only enforce this natural interpretation. 'What is important here is the analysis of the distinctive features of Samkhya in this accouht, especially its differences with the current standard version. First, the account does not deal only with Samkhya:in-its narrow scope. It considers Yoga to bę inseparablę from-Sāmkhya; the two, form a unity. Yajnavalkya giyes a clear, and authentic account of Samkhya and recognises its importance as-a means for achieving moksa. He deals with Samkhya in its phase of Sāmkhya: Yoga. . Second, the account does not accept the popular identification of Samkhya with twenty-five tattvas. This is not emphasised as the distinguishing feature of Samkhya. In the first instance it mentions only twenty-four categories, eight prakrtis and sixteen vikdras. The first prakrti -is avyakta, the remaining seven are uygkta. ,The vikāras are classified into ten visesas and. five savisesas with manas as the sixteenth. The'evolution of tattvas from prakrti is arranged under ninesargas. In this scheme purusa is not mentioned as the twenty-fifth tattva. Third, the account mentiohs separate time-span for avyakfa, mahat, ahamkara, manas and subjects. Fourth, here we find, besides an account of the-evolution of tattvas, a description of the processes of creation and dissolution. The process of creation is initiated by the pratibuddha through Brahma created from the Golden Egg. The dissolution is initiated

Yajñavalkya - An Independent Samkhya Tradition 111

by the eternal avyakta Brahman, through the god ahamkara personified. " Fifth,'the classification of.adhydtma,. adhibhuta 'and adhidaivata is applied to many object's. Sixth, prakrti is said to create manyqualities in a purusa which are gouped into three (gunas), sattva, rajas and tamas. Parkrti is acetana, but when purusa-tattva subsists, in it, it creates and destroys. The avyakta prakrti is characterised by gunas. Seventh, the dichotomy between purusa and prakrti is brought out. Prakrti is one, but purusa is many. The account of the difference between purusa and prakrti and the relationship between the two is the main:point-in-Samkhya. , 'Eighth, it is significant that the account usès a number ofterms for both purusd and prakrti. It seems that the use of the terms purușa and prakrti had not settled down as the regular terins. Ninth, the account introduces a twenty-fifth and a twenty- sixth category. Prakrti is the twenty-fourth category. It is called apratibuddha. Budhyamana is the twenty-fifth category and stands for the individuals. Buddha is the twenty-sixth category and signifies he Supreme Brahmā. A belief in the Supreme Brahmā, besides the purusa and prakrti, is an important point. Tenth, the account emphasises the consideration of.death, the part of-the body through.which prana goes out, the indications of coming death and the conduct after that. Yājğavalkya and Daivarati Janaka Date According to Bhagavaddatt,6 Nimi Janākà is the famous Janaka mentioned in the Upanisads, Yajnavalkya'being his friend and préceptor, who was present in the-Malabharata War. But, the suggestion is untenable. In the Moksadharmaparva it is Daivarāti Janaka, and not Nimi Janaka, to whom Yājñavalkya expounds Sāmkhya. 6. Bhâratavarșa kā Itihāsa referred to by U.V. Shastri, op.cit., p. 595.

112 Retrieving.Samkhya History

U.V: Shastri? points:ouť that in the Ramayana in the family of Videhan kings, founded by Nimi, the name of Devarāta occurs in the seventh generation. Devarāta's son will be designated as Daiyarāti. Shastri identifies Daivarati with king Brhadratha mentioned in the Ramayana. On the basis of Bhisma in the Mahabharata referring to the dialogue between Yājnavalkya and Daivarāti Janaka, as ancient history (itihasam puratanam), Shastri places Yajñavalkýa añd Daivarāti Janaka in the middle of the tretā yugd. Shastri does not advance any cogent argument for equating Brhadratha with Daivarati Janaka, the contemporary of Yajnavalkya In the Puranic list, compiled 'by Pargiter, after Devarata, the sixth king, Brhaduktha (and not Bphadratha) occurs as the seventh king, but the two were not father and son, Devarāta belonging to the seventeenth generation, whereas Brhaduktha was in the twentieth generation.8 Again, it will not be safe to place Yajnavalkya a few centuries before the Mahaharata War on the basis of his dialogue with Daivarāti being referred to as ancient history. As we have pointed out,' in the parallel case of the dialogue between Vasistha and Karala Janaka it was the compiler of the Móksadharmaparva ïn the Śantiparva who took the narrative fo be ancient history. Possibly, it was not ancient history for people of the Mahābhārata War times. S.N. Pradhan10 offers a new analysis of the dynastic list of the Videhan kings from Siradhvaja Janaka (Pargiter No. 23) to Krti (Pargiter No. 53). According to him, after Kuni (=Sakuni, Pargiter No. 29) the dynasty branched into two, a collateral branch, consisting of kings (Pargiter No. 31-41) from Kratujit (= Pargiter's Rtujit) to Upagupta, and the main line (Pargiter No. 42-53) from'Svagata to Krti-Pradhan places the last two names in themain line, Bahulasva and Krti, after the Mahahharata.War. He does not attach much importance to 'Yājñavalkya-Daivarāti, Janaka dialogue in- te

7. Op.cit:, p. 592. 8. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition. ʻ

8. See infra chapter 10. 10. Chronology of Ancient India, pp. 138-44.

Yājñavalkya - An Independent Samkhya Tradition 113

Mahābhārdta, and says that Krti was a contemporary of Janaka Vaideha and Yajnavalkya of the Vedic literature.This.would place Yājñavalkya immediately after the Mahābhārata War. Pradhan's suggestion to locate Yajnavalkya a generation afterthe Mahābhārata War is arbitrary. Pradhan is silent about Yajnavalkya'and Daivarati Janaka equation .: He does not find a place.for the important king Janaka Vaideha in the history of the main branch of Videhan kings, but instead mentions him as,a contemporary.of the little known Krti. Pradhan's suggestion of the contemporaneity of Krti and Janaka Vaideha is presumtuous and cannot be used for placing Yajnavalkya sometime after the Mahabharata War. F.E. Pargiter11 has collected fifty-three names of.Videhan kings from the, Purāņas, and the Rāmāyana representing ninety-four generations. The dynasty was founded by Iksvāku's son Nimi. The sixth name in the list is Devarata,belonging to;the seventeenth generation. Siradhvaja janaka, the father of Sita and a contemporary of Rama, is .no. 23 in the-listandt belongs.fo the sixty-fourth generation. The Puranic list of Videhan kings does not go beyond the Mahabharata War. The Videhan monarchy was revived after the War. But, the Puranas do not furnish the genealogy of Videhan kings in the post-Bharata War period. Y. Mishra hastried to restore order, in the history of the Videhan dynasty in, this period: He holds that there were twelve generations of Videhan kings in the post-Bharata,War period who ruled for more than two centuries. Qf the fifteen names of the kings of Videha mentioned in the. Jatakas; Mishra12 prepares a list of twelve belonging to this period. In the Mahabharata he traces the names of nine Videhan kings of the post-Bharata.War period. According to Mishra,13 Daivarāti Janaka of the Mahābharata 11. Op.cit., P.L. Bhargava, India in the Vedic Age, pp. 60-1, gives only fifty- one names of the Videhan kings, omitting no. 9 (Dhrtimant) and no. 44 (Śruta in Pargitér's list). 12 Comprehensive History of Bihar, Vol. I, Part I (ed. by B.P. Sinha), pp. 199-200: 13. Op.cit., p. 201.

114 · Retrieving Samkhya. History (No. 9 in.the list) is identical with Mahajanaka II (No. 7in the list) of the'Jataka liferature: He further Adentifies this Videhan king with Janaka Vaideha mentioned in the Brhadâranyaka Upanisad. In the philosophical contest at his court, the most prominent figure was Yājñavalkya' Vājasaneya, a pupil of Uddālaka Āruņi: Mishra places this Daivarāti Mahājanaka II-Janaka Vaideha kņown from three different sources in the last quarter of the ninth century Bc (č. 825 BC-800 BC): Accordingly the date of Yajnavalkya can besuggested to be c: 875>800-BC.14

Yājnavalkya's Background. or < L In the Moksadharmaparva account Yajnavalkya stands by himself. We are not informed about his teacher, from whom he learnt Samkhya and other philosopical ideas. In chapter 318 he narrates How he acquired, through the blessings ofSūrya, the Sukla Yajurteda and composed the Satapatha including rahasya, samgraha and parisișta. He dlaim's to have learnt the Purānas from Romaharsa. Later, in reply to Visvavasu's twenty-four, questions, based on the Veda, and the twenty-fifth, about dnviksiki he churned in his mind the Upanişad, with its parisista, keeping an eye on the anviksiki. On this basis, he claims to have expounded his views. Viśvāvasu gives a long list of famous Samkhya teachers ánd a few sages-reputed for their Samkhya associations, from whom he claims to have leatnt Samkhya earlier. His request to Yājñavalkya ta expound Samkhya would imply that Visvavasu did ndt consider Yajnavalkya to be idealogically connected with these Samkhya authorities. Thus, Yajnavalkya seems to have enjoyed an independent position through his distinct viewson Sāmkhya topics.

14 For Yajnavalk ya in Indian tradition see Kane, History of Dharmasastra Vol. I, part 1. Our own Foreword to Rajdeo Dubey, -Smrtikalina Bharatiya Samaja evem Samskrti. He is mentioned in the SatBra, IX.7; Śamkyana Aranyaka,-XIII. 1. The Isibhasiyaim, 12 records the views of Jannavakka (-Yajnavalkya). Sagarmal Jain-Rşibhāşita: Eka Adhyayana, pp. 45-6 points out its close parallels with BrUp, III.5.1 He places the composition of this Jain text between the fifth and third centuries BC.

Yajñavalkyd - An Independent Sāmkhya Tradition 115 According to the Mahābhārata evidence, (Yajnavalkyathad a deep knowledge of the fifteen sakhas of the Sukla Yajurveda, with all their auxiliary parts. He is said to have composed the Satapatha Brahmana. The Brhadaranyakopanisad is the last part of this Brāhmana. As he himself observes, Yajnavalkya formulated his Samkhya views on the basis of a deep understanding of the ideas in the Vedic texts he had learnt, and later expounded them to his students. U.V. Shastri15' supports this evidence and remarks that the philosophical ideas attributed to Yajnavalkya in the 'Mahabharata have a general agreement with the views expressed in the Brhadaranyakopanisad. He says that the Samkhya views of Yajnavalkya mentioned in the Mahabharata, were derived from this Upanisad, or, in any case, the complier of the relevant chapters in the Mahabharata believed in the idealogical linkage between the two philosophical expositions. From the Moksadharmaparva,16 we learn that Yajnavalkya had collaborated with several.rsis, Devala, Sumantu, Paila and Jaimini, in performing a sacrifice for the father of king Daivarti Janaka. Yajnavalkya refers to his unpleasant relations. with his own-maternal-uncle; But, from this we cannot infer any similarity or difference between the philosophical views of Yajnavalkya and those of the sages named here. * The reference to Yajnavalkya learning Purāņas from Romaharșa is not of much historical value for determining the intellectual background of Yajnavalkya. Though purdna as a genre of writings is evidenced in the Vedic literature, no extant Purana appears to have circulated in that early period. The earliest, portions of the available, Puranas are dated back to third-fourth century Bc. The present reference, thus, cannot be construed to suggest Purānic influenceon Yajnavalkya's view. At best it may indicate that, according to the compiles of the relevant chapters in the Moksadharmaparva, there is a compatability between Yajnavalkya's exposition ofSāmkhya and the treatment of Samkhya in the Purānas. - 15. Op.cit., pp. 594-5. 16. Mbh., XIII 318.17-20.

116 « Retrieving Samkhya History Yājñavalkya's Followers Yajnavalkya, possibly did not found a Samkhya school. If he did create a school, it does not seem to have existed long enough to leave a lasting memory. In the Moksadharmaparava17 Yajñavalkya såys that he taught the Satapatha Brakmana to his students and with them performed the sacrifice for the Janaka king. He taught his students the entire Satapatha along with the samgraha, after which they returned home." Hiș students are not mentioned in connection with his discourse to Visyavasu, the Gandharva,king. This would suggest that his students were not present to receive, the exposition of Samkhya. The narrative says that after Yajnavalkya's discourse Visvāvasu went back to the heaven'. Visvavasu taught this philosophy. to Brahma and other gods, to people living on the earth, and also to those living in the underneath world. . The introduction of Visvāvasu; a Gandharya; as the medium for thercirculation of Samkhya; expounded by- Yajnayalkya, was evidently intended to add to its glory. But, this does not rule out real students who promoted the-Samkhya teachings-of Yajñavalkya. According to the Moksadharmaparva, Yajnavalkya preached his philosophical views to king Daivarāti Janaka. After receiving the instructions, Janaka gave the Videha kingdom to his son, but adopting the rules of an ascetic(yati-dharma), lived there. Studying the Samkhya philosophy and the Yogasastra in their fullness, he adopted the correct approach towards prakrti and his ownself. In the later part of his life Janaka possibly himself followed Samkhya and Yoga principles and preached ,them to others. The Brhadaranyakopanisad shows that the court of Janaka was a prestigious centre of philosophical discussion in which Yajnavalkya surpassed other contestents. It can be guessed that Yajñavalkya's characteristic philosophical ideas gained currency in the Videhan kingdom. We can concede the possibility that these ideas influenced some of the later philosophers at the Videhan court.

17. XII.318.17-18, 24.

Yajavalkya - An Independent Samkhya Tradition 117

In the Moksadharmaparva18Bhisma says that Janaka received the knowledge from Yajnavalkya and.that.he himself got it from Jaņaka. There will. be. no chronological.discrepancy in Bhīșma referring: to. Yājnavalkya-Daivarāti Janaka dialogue as ancient history and also saying that he himself obtained the knowledge of Samkhya from Janaka; it can be explained as possible, considering the surprisingly long life attributed to Bhisma, If, however, Daivarāti Janaka is placed long after Bhisma and the Moksadharmaparva is taken to reflect the views of its compilers in a late phase of the growth of the Mahabharata text, then the claim of Bhisma to have received Samkhya from Janaka cannot be historically valid. This calim was inserted possibly to add to the credence of the account of the Yajnavalkya-Daivarāti Janaka dialoguę. Yājnavalkya and Vasistha P.Chakravarti19 refers to a few points of similarity in the expositions of Sämkhya attributed to Vasistha and Yajnavalkya. Both employ the terms apratibudahą; budhyamana and buddha and introduce the twenty-sixth categqry. Both describe the characteristics of the gunas and differentiate the purusa from the prakrti. Both accept twenty-five categories, but do not speak of the tanmatras. Both maintain the dualism of the conscious and the unconscious, but do not always refer to them by the terms purusa and prakrti. Instead, they uge the terms, ksetrajna and ksetra, aksara and ksara. Chakravarti explains the introduction of the twenty-sixth category by associating Vasistha and Yajnavalkya with the Samkhya-Ypga school of the Epic. There are some other points of similarities between Vasistha and Yajnavalkya, though they are by no means identical. Both attach importance to creation (sarga) and speak of several varieties of sargas. Vasiștha classifies them into five, whereas Yajñavalkya describes nine. Both believe that, on account of its association with prakrti, purusa considers itself to be the doer and'enjoyer. Both

18. Mbh:, XII.318.109. 19. Op.cit., pp. 49-53.

118 Retrieving Samkhya History

emphasise the need for a proper understanding of the Veda. Both give separate accounts of Samkhya and Yoga, but maintain that the two are one. Both regard the knowledge of the self as the proper means of moksa. Both explain the essential point through terms in pairs of opposites. The similarities are to be seen also in style and presentation, which, in some cases, involve identical lines and expression. Thus, the passage in Vasistha describing a man who reads the Veda without understanding it as only carrying the load" has its parallel in the expression jnanabharavaha used by Yajnavalkya.1 The passage about Samkhya and Yoga being one are almost identical in the two." Likewise, the passages about the two types of Yogic activities in the two are closely similar, with the difference that Vasiştha has dhyāna for dhāranā in Yajnavalkya.2 The similarities in expression can be explained as being due to the style of presentation adopted by the author of these chapters in the Moksadharmaparva. But the similarities in principles require a deeper explanation. If one has not been influenced by the other, we have to postulate that the two belonged to the same phase in the development of Sämkhya or else the two were connected with the same tradition. As we have seen, whereas Yajnavalkya possibly did not belong to the main line of Samkhya from Kapila to Pancasikha, Vasistha is mentioned as one of the followers of Pancasikha. It is, however, to be noted that both were associated with the court of Mithila and were not far removed in time. It is not unlikely that the principles expounded by Yajnavalkya influenced Vasistha. Chakravarti refers to the two Samkhya teachers as belonging to the Samkhya-Yoga school, Both give separate accounts of Samkhya and Yoga, but maintain that they are not separate. It seems that

20 Mbh., XIL.305.14. 21. Ibid., XII.318.52. 22. Ibid., XII.305.19 (Vasistha) - XII.316.4 (Yajnavalkya). 23. Ibid., XII. 306-7-8 (Vasistha) = XII. 316.9-10 (Yajnavalkya), See also the first line in XII.306-18 - XII.316.19.

Yajnavalkya - An Independent Samkhya Tradition 119

both belonged to a phase when Samkhya and Yoga had acquired their distinctive form, but attempts were being made to fuse them. Here there are two possibilities. First, Samkhya and Yoga had their separate traditions, which were tried to be integrated. Second, the two were parts or aspects of the same system. In course of time they developed in their own way, but an attempt was made to retain their joint character. There is no definite ground for arguing in favour of either of the two possibilities. It is, however, likely that for long the two existed together, Samkhya concerning more with the philosophical principles and Yoga with the practical aspect. When Yoga started developing separately, some Samkhya teachers asserted their joint character, but maintained the primacy of Samkhya by emphasising that moksa is possible through jnana and advocating the practice of yoga in furthering the approach and attitude resulting from knowledge. Yajnavalkya was among the foremost Samkhya teachers advocating the joint character of Samkhya and Yoga. We may now attempt placing Yajnavalkya in the history of Samkhya. The Samkhya principles in the Samkhyakārika are taken to represent the standard account. The extent of the closeness of any version of Samkhya with the Samkhyakarika presentation determines its relative chronological position as earlier or later. But, this involves an assumption that the philosophical ideas of a system grows in a strictly unilinear vertical direction. It does not recognise properly the possibility ofindividual variations, of differing views surfacing at times and coexisting, and of there being no ascertainable and fixed period for their continuance, with the result that we cannot formulate a chronological graph for the life-tenure of the origin and development of any particular idea or principle.

Early Sāmkhya in Yājnavalkya In the case of Yajnavalkya also one may trace elements which, for their similarity with the exposition in the Samkhyakarika, would appear to be later developments, and also others so widely different as to be placed in earlier times. In any case, we must admit the possiblity of the presence of elements which were retained in the

120 Retrieving Samkhya History

standardised Samkhya of later times. But, significantly there are several, prominent features, referring to early- stages in the development of Samkhya. ' * " First, the terminology of the categories of purusa and prakrti had not been standardised. Instead we find several alternative teŕms being çurrént. 'Second, the primacy was of the concepts of purusa and prakrti through whịch the central philqsophy of Samkhya is explained. This is characteristic of a very early stage in Samkhya history, when it was expounded through the concepts of purusarthata and dasamulikarthas,24 which emphasise the fattvas of purusa and prakrti, and explain the system through their mutual relationship: Third, the category of prakrti the evolution of the tattvas from it, and the three gunas characterising it do not appear to have been standardised. Fourth, the account of creation and dissolution, time-span assigned to prakrtì, mahat, ahamkara, buddhi, manas and the visayas and the passage of prana through particular parts of the bodý are not philosophically'maintainable. They possibly, belong to an early period when philosophical principles had -not freed themselves from popular ideas. Fifth, the account breathes an atmosphere of Brahmang- panisadic ideas. It does not mark a total revolt against the Veda, but criticiseș the Vedicrites as being oflimited efficacy. It emphasises the heed for a proper understanding of the Veda. ajnayalkya is credited with the authorship of the Satapatha Brahmana and is said to have churned the Upanised for expounding his principles. He asserts that what he says in answering the questions on the Veda is anviksikī and represents the essence of the Veda. The use of the term anvikşikt is significant. The Arthasastra25 of Kautilya mentions anviksiki as one of the four vidyas, the other three being

24.See our article "Dasamdlikartha in Samkhya" in Indian Historical . tReview, Vol. pp. .25 .. t.I.2.1.

Yājñavalkya - An Independent Sāmkhya Tradition 121 trayi, vartā and dandaniti. Ānvikşikī contains Samkhya, Yoga and Lokāyata.26 Thus, the Mahabharata account refers to the teachings of Yajñavalkya as philosopohy in opposition to the Vedic ritualism designated as trayi. In ealy stages the term Sāmkhya did not signify 1 a set of philosophical system. It stood for the method of rational exposition or philosophy, as opposed to the Vedic method of sacrificial rites. Yajnavalkya belongs to the phase of later Vedic texts, of the Brähmanas and Upanisads, when Sāmkhya emerged as a method of rational exposition of the problems of human existence. Sixth, this analysis eminently suits the concept ofbudhyamana and buddha as the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth categories. Budhyamana or the individual purusa does not know about the twenty-sixth category, on account of its misconceived relationship with the twenty-fourth category, the apratibuddha or prakrti. When it understands its separateness from prakrti, it realises that it is really the twenty-sixth category. The basic point in this account is the essential oneness of budhyamana and buddha. This is the cardinal concept of Brahman and ätman, which had its beginnings in the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, but acquired its charcteristic form and development in the Upanisads. Seventh, the exposition of Samkhya and Yoga categories separately, with the assertion that the two are not different, shows a phase when the two had acquired their distinctive forms but the Samkhya teachers claimed that Yoga was an integral part of Sāmkhya. This represents the phase of Samkhya-Yoga in the history of Sāmkhya.

Conclusion We, thus, find that Yajñavalkya appeared in a very early period in the history of Samkhya. He did not belong to the philosophical lineage of Kapila-Asuri-Pancasikha. He was earlier than Vasistha, a disciple of Pañcaśikha, but was not far removed from Pañcasikha. He was possibly earlier than Pancasikha and, thus, has to be referred to the Asuri-Pancasikha bracket. The evidence of the 26. Indian Historical Review, I.2.10.

122 Retrieving Samkhya History

Brhadāranyaka Upanisad would suggest that-Yajnavalkya was a senior contemporary of Asuri. In one of the three lists of teachers and pupils in. this Upanisad27 Asuri appears as an .immediate successor of Yājnavalkya. Yājnavalkya was, thus, an early Samkhya teacher, independent of the main line of Samkhya and belonged to the times of Asuri.

.

4

11 İx -

27. Brhadāranyaka Upanișad, VI.5.2.

6

Sāmkhya Adoption by Āyurveda Teachers (Ätreya, Agniveśa and Caraka)

Earlier Studies on Caraka-samhita Evidence

DASGUPTA S.N. DASGUPTA1 is the first scholar 'who paid attention to the refreshing evidence about Samkhya philosophy in the Caraka- samhita and analysed it for reconstructing the history of Sāmkhya. He was followed by Chakravarti,2 who presented an independent appraisal of the evidence in this text. G:J. Larson3 has offered his own interpretation of the evidence. No other scholar has attempted a new analysis of the material. Dasgupta4 identified six main features of Sāmkhya as givěn by Caraka: (1) Purusd is-the state of avyakta: (2) The avyakta and its later products form a-conglomeration which'generates the living bēing. (3) The tanmatras are not mentióned. (4) Rajas and tamds represent, the bad states of the'mind and sattva the good ones. (5) The ultimate -state of emancipation is absolute annihilation or

: 1n A History of Indian Philosopy, yol. Ir pp. 213-7. 2. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 99- 110. 3. Classical Samkhya, pp. 103-8. 4. Op. cit., p. 216.

124 Retrieving Samkhya History

characterless absolute existence; it is spoken of as the Brahman state; there is no consciousness in this state, for consciousness is due to the conglomeration of the self with its evolutes, buddhi, ahamkāra, etc. (6) The senses are formed of matter (bhautika). According to Dasgupta, this account of Samkhya agrees with the system propounded by Pancasikha in the Mahabharata, XII. 2195 and represents the earliest systematic doctrine of Sämkhya.8 Dasgupta refers to the common points in the expositions of Caraka and Patanjali: both accept twenty-four principles, purusa and abyaktd being combined into one, both argue for the existence of a self as the basis for moral responsibility: both regard consciousness to be due to the cónglomeration of the physical body, mind and cetas; both say that suffering arises because the conglomeration is identified with the self, both describe gungs as good and bad qualities of the mind; both speak of a kşetra (the state of conglomeration); and both describe the last state of salvation as alinga, to be attained by the doctrine of ultimate renunciation or complete destruction .. But, Dasgupta does not carry these points forward to, suggest any connection between the two .-

CHAĶRAVARTI P. 'Chakravarti emphasises certain striking similarities between Caraka and Asvaghosa (Buddhacarita) in their accounts'ofSāmkhya: both classify the avyakta and its evolutes into two groups - the eight-fold. prakrti, constituting the avyakta, buddhi ahamkāra and the five gross elements and the vikarg (modification) comprising the ten organs, the mind and the five objects of the senses; hoth count, the objects of the senses as tattuas, but do not mention the tanmātrqs; both speak of ksetra and ksetrajña and differentiate the avyakta from the vyakta; both describe eight factors, which are at the root of worldly existence; and both identify the stage ofliberation with Brahman, described as indestructible and without attributes. -

5. Classical Sāmkhya, p. 216. - 6. Op.cit., p. 217.

Samkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 125

P. Chakravarti also points out significant differences'in the exposition of Samkhya by Caraka and Asvaghosa. Caraka combines prakrtì and purușa into one single principle called avyakta, but this is not done by Caraka. Caraka and Asvaghosa differ about the sequence of the eight motive factors at the root of the worldly existence; besides slight variations in their definitions. Caraka differs from Asvaghosa in not defining sattva and not discussing the five-fold ignorance (pañcaparva avidyā) .. On the basis of the similarities in their Samkhya accounts Chakravarti suggests that Caraka and Asvaghoșa,received their ideas from a common source. He points out that some ideas in thè Buddhacarita are closely related to the Samkhya passages in the Mahabharata and suggests that Caraka, as also Asvaghosa and the Epic 'were more or less influenced by a common school ofSamkhya'. Significantly, Chakravarti does not emphasise similarities between Caraka and Pañcasikha, though noting the similarities of Caraka with the Sāmkhya accounts of Vasistha and Yajñavalkya.

LARSON Larson brackets Caraka and Pañcaśikha and pláces Aśvaghoșa's Buddhacarita in a separate category. Hé reproduces the points of similarities between Caraka and Pañcasikha; as noted by Dasgupta, but adds that there are also some striking difference's.'According to him, all the three were influenced by an old common Sāmkhya- Yoga' tradition which was in a fluid or changing condition. He distinguishes the Caraka-Pancasikha as more monistic and the Buddhacarita as clearly dualistic. . In analysing the passages in the three sources scholars have tended to overemphasise similarities, but have not given due importance to the points of differences, some of which will be weighty considerations in determining the nature of Sāmkhya in the different accounts. These go against the thesis of a common tradition as origin. Th common features may be explained in many ways, not necessarily by a single school or a common tradition. The varying points are the distinguishing features. The tradition, to

126 Retrieving Samkhya History which Pancasikha belonged, is known as that of Kapila and Asuri. It is difficult to believe that Pancasikha derived his ideas from a tradition different from that of Kapila and Asuri. If Caraka also belonged to this tradition, we cannot explain the absence of his name in the sources naming the teachers of Samkhya. It is more plausible that there were many stages in the growth of the Samkhya system and teachers belonging to one stage shared certain points. These teachers had their own distinctive ideas which on some points differed from the common expositions. They are to be treated as idependent thinkers presenting distinct, separate ex- positions,which may be related on account of the common points, but are not to be described as issuing out of the same tradition.

Philosophical Portions of Caraka-samhita In studying the Samkhya views of Caraka scholars generally confine themselves to the first chapter in the Sarirasthana section of the text. But, there are many other chapters in the text which contain views on philosophical problems. Sūtrasthāna 1, 8, 11, 12, 25,26, 28 and 30, Vimāna 4 and 8, Sārira 1, 3, 4 and 5, Cikitsāsthāna 15 and 28, and Siddhisthana 12, Sarirasthana, chapter 1 presents a consolidated account of the Samkhya principles in the form of questions and answers. The other important chapters, which deal with problems connected with Samkhya principles are Sūtrasthāna, 1 (Vaisesika topics sāmānya, viseşa, guņa, dravya, karma and samauāya), 8 (indriyas), 11 (eşana and criticism of nāstika views with the help ofpratyaksa, anumana,agama and yukti), 25(puruşa), Sarirasthaha 3-5 (transmigration of atman and creation) and 1, 5 (yoga). The text refers to Samkhya and Yoga by name, It discusses some topics which are generally considered by Nyaya, Vaisesika, Mimamsa and Vedanta, Whether Caraka discussed these topics as parts of these systems or they were within the original scope of his ideas cannot be decided.

Sāmkhya Principles in Caraka-samhitā S.N. Dasgupta has not noted several important points in the

Samkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 127

account of Samkhya presented by Caraka. Here the tattuas are enumerated as being twenty-four in number. Purusa is described as the conglomeration (rast) of these twenty-four.' Prakrti is not included in the list as the basic tattva, avyakta. Purusa itself is mentioned as auyakta. For the purposes of medicine the purusa is described as the samyoga-purusa, the fusion of six dhatus, the five elements, sky, etc., and cetana, brahma or avyakta." Caraka often uses the term dhatu in place of tattua. In the discussion10 about purușa being nitya (eternal) or anitya (impermanent) it is said that purusa is nitya, as it is without beginning, but purusa, as a conglomeration, resulting from a cause, is not so. The former is auyakta and cannot be conceived; the latter is uyakta. Auyakta is also designated as ātman, kşetrajña, śāsvata, vibhu and auyaya. From itissue buddhi, ahamkara, etc., which are vyakta. That which is the subject of senses is vyakta; that which is beyond senses and can only be inferred through lingas is avyakta. Caraka is not ignorant of the term prakrti; he describes prakrti as consisting of eight dhatus, which include the five elements, buddhi, avyakta and ahamkara,"1 but, in the direct question about the nature of prakrti,"2he does not describe it. The classification of twenty-four tattuas into two groups, prakrti and vikara, and their enumeration by Caraka13 different from the account in the standard Samkhya system. The prakrti group includes the five elements, buddhi, avyakta and ahamkara. The vikara group consists of ten organs, manas, and five objects of sense-organs. In this account the two terms mahat and pancatanmatra are not mentioned. In many passages Caraka expresses the view that atman is one.

7. I have consulted Jyotirmitra, Caraka euam Suśruta ke Darsanika Vişaya ka Adhyayana with advantage. 8. Sarira, I.17, 37, 61-4. 9 Ibid., I.85, V.4. 10. Wbid. L61-2. 11 Ibid., 117.63. 12 Ibid,14 Ibid, 1.163. Also Nidana, VILI 41

128 Retrieving Samkhya History This is in opposition to the well-known Samkhya view about the plurality ofpurusas. Caraka says that, on account of the association of rajas and tamas, atman appears in the form of innumerable individuals; but, with the increase of sattva, it is freed, from the identity with the conglomeration.14 In all the beings dtman is one (nirvisesa) and without modification; it appears, as individual (visesa) on account.of the sattva and the body.45 Atmarl is,one, but it appears in all the bodies.16 Though Caraka regards dtman to be without attributes, åttachment and action and to be' all-pervading,17 he describes purușa as characterised by guňas, because he does not subscribe to the idea of an inactive prakrtt having the three gunas. This purusd' enjoys the fruits of his action, acquires knowledge, and suffers from attachment (moha), joy and sorrow, and life and death. Caraka mentions two different courses of evolution (srsti). The first is in the form of six dhatus. Caraka specifically says that the concept of purusa as the conglomeration of six dhätus was prbpounded by earlier Samkhyas.18 Possibly, this concept was adopted by Punarvasu Atreya, but the passage was introduced'in the text by Caraka when he revised it:19 The course of evolution according to this view is explained by Hiranyaksa in sympdsiun. 20 The number of gunas increases from one to fiye in an ascending order from ākāsa to vāyu, tejas, jala and prthvī.21 The second course of evolutiorr, in terms of twenty-four tattvas."

14. Sarlra, I.36. 15. Ibid., IV.33. 16. Ibid., I.81, II.32. 17. lbid., I.35. 18. Sūtra, XXV.15. 19. Cakrapăņi on Caraka, Sarira, I.16, ignorant about the early history of Samkhya, says that this purusa as expounded by Vaisesika, is the subject of medicine. 20 Sutra, XXV.5. 21 Śārira, I.28; IV.8. 22. Śārira, I.36.

Sāmkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 129 is similar to the generally accepted Samkhya wiew. The only difference is that Caraka traces it from avyakta (and not prakrti) and mentions buddhi (and not mahat) as its first evolute. As opposed to the generally circulated Samkhya view of prakrti being the material cause of creation, Caraka regards'purusa as the cause. The question is posed how is purusa the cause23 and the point is:established with the help of arguments.24 The main reason for this distinctive view is the nature of purusa expounded by Caraka. Caraka preșents two different account of purusa. As an exclusively cetana, tattva, purusa is beyond the consideration of cause and effect. But purusa, as a conglomerate of tattvas, is characterised by * rajas and tamas undergoes birth and death. It is this purusa which becomes vyakta from avyakta and then again becomes avyakta, and is regarded as the kārana. In the Classical Sāmkhya indriyas are said to, evolve from ahamkāra. But Caraka ręgards them as emanating from the five elements.25 Through analysis the five basic elements are inferred from kha (sky), vāyu, jyoti (agni), jala and prthivi. By a combination of the modifications of these elements the five sense-organs are created, which are dominated respectively by one of these elements. The.organs are pervasive, and receive the subject-created by the particular element predominant in them. Caraka describes eight kinds of miraculous powers acquired by the yogis. These are avesa (entering another's body), cefasojnanam (knowing an other's mind) arthanam chandathah kriya (regulating the objects of senses according to will), drsti (perceiving this beyond eyes), śrotra (hearing sounds beyond ears), smrti remembering all ideas), kanti (supernatural splendour) and istathah adarsanam (becoming invisible according to will). The Samkhyakārika26 enumerates eight siddhis, beginning with uha'(reasoning). The Yogic tradition also mentions eight supernatural powers (siddhis 23. Śārīra, I.3. 24. Śarira, XXXIX-45. 25. Sūtra, VIII.14. 26. Karika, 51.

130 Retrieving Samkhya History or aiśvaryas), beginning with anima, which later acquired a standardised formulation.27 Caraka's account is distinctive, both in the use of the terms and the nature of the powers referred to. Sämkhya teachers maintain distinctive views about the nature of the subtle body through which dtman transmigrates from one birth to another. Caraka says, that ätman enters the womb in the form of seed made of four elements created by the results of his karma.28 The knowledge (jnana)which Caraka mentions as instrumental in, achieving emancipation, is also of a'special nature.29 According to the Samkhyakarika,30 the kevala-jnana means the realisation, that I do not exist and there is nothing which is mine. Caraka says that this knowledge is characterised by the realisation that atman pervades the loka, and loka subsists in the atman. Caraka does not include kala in his list of tattvas, but he does expound the importance of kala.31 This is significantly opposed to the exposition in the Samkhyakarika which is silent about kāla. The non-acceptance of kald has been generally noted as an important feature of Sämkhya.32

Textual Problems in Evaluating Caraka-samhita Evidence There are certain basic difficulties which prevent a proper analysis of the Samkhya material in the Caraka-samhita for reconstructing the history of Samkhya. It being a classic text on Ayurveda, a student of philosophy does not give it the respect parallel to an priginal text of philosophy. There is also a misconception about the characteristic features of Samkhya and a failure to appreciate the

27. Dahlaņa on Šuśruta, Cikitsā, XXIX.13. 28. Śarira, II.35. 29. Śārīra, V.20. 30. Karikā, 54. 31 Vimāna, VIII.125. 32. Vacaspatimisra, Samkhyatattvakaumudt on Karika, 33. See also Ratnaprabha of Sankarabhasya on Brahmasūtra, II.2.1.

Sämkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 131

significance of evidence referring to a different account of Sāmkhya of an earlier period. A third factor is the nature of the text. In its present form it is not a unified text composed by a single author. There are three recognised stages in the growth of the text. It was originally composed by Agnivesa, a pupil of Punarvasu Ātreya. later it was revised by Caraka. A second redaction was attempted by Drdhabala. The fourth difficulty arises because Caraka cannot be identified and his date cannot be determined with certainty. The name of the text creates an impression that it was the composition of Caraka and hence the views expressed in it are attributed to Caraka.33 Some scholars, while admitting that it has received its present form in course of time, apportion the main credit to Caraka. The alternative suggestions offered are: (a) the original brief treatise of Agnivesa was completely changed and developed into an altogether new text by Caraka and(b) Caraka has presented a summary of the debates and discussions of sages, experts of Ayurveda and assembled in symposia. But the colophon always asserts that the treatise was composed by Agnivesa and revised by Caraka (agnivesakrte tantre carakaprati-samskrte). In the text also Caraka is always referred to as the redactor, but never as author; it is Agnivesa whois mentioned as the author.34 If Caraka had been the original author, or ifhe had so completely revised and recast the earlier text as to give it the form of a new text, there will be no justification for associating the name of Agnivesa so prominently. Evidently, even after the revision the text retained much of its orignial form and content. . In the account of Samkhya in the Caraka-samhita it is difficult to apportion individual points to Agnivesa, Caraka and Drdhabala.

33. G. Haldar, Vrddhatrayi (Calcutta, 1362 Bengal era), pp. 21, 32 postulates two Carakas, the first, the student of Vaisampāyana wrote the original Samhita, and the second, the physician of Kanişka, named as Kapilabala, revised the Samhita partially. According to him, the text was further revised thrice, by the son of Kapilabala by Drdhabala and then by Candrata. This is highly speculative and without any textual support. 34. Caraka, Siddhi, XII.38, 52.

132 Retrieving Samkhya History So far as Drdhabala is concerned, we know, on his own authority, that he completed the redaction of the Agnivesatantra by adding to thetext prepared by.Caraka seventeen chapters in the Cikitsāsthāna and all the twelve chapters in both Kalpasthana and Siddhisthana; which had been lost.35 Of the portions revised by Drdhadbala it is only the last chapter in the Siddhisthana,which has a connection with Samkhya; it deals with the tantrayuktis. But, it will always remain debatable if the tantrayuktis were laid down by Samkhya in' itș early stages. * On the basis of the person expounding Cakrapāņi36 classifies the sutras in the Caraka-samhita into four: guru-sūtra, (that expounded by the teacher), sisya-sutra (that expounded by the stúdent), pratisamskartr-sūtra (that expounded by the redactor) and eklya-sūtra (which presents the opinion of one sage). Cakrapāņi illustrates these four categories. This textual apparatus has not been applied to the whole text to sift passages of the four categories. This cannot be done in all the cases. As a result of the revision, the passages are so mixed up that the specific contributions of Atreya, Agnivesa and Caraka are difficult to identify. This holds good for passages' presenting philosophical views, including Samkhya principles. The revision has not succeeded in introducing complete uniformity of form and style. Traces of earlier elements are easily discernable in some cases. The prose in the text is similar to that of the Krsna Yajurveda, its style ofpresentation follows the Brhmanas, the account of debates and discussions in the parisads is nearer to the Upanisadic accounts, and the naming of some chapters37-after the opening expressions is characteristic of early Vedic texts.38 But, we face real difficulty when we try to distinguish earlier portions in the text from its láter ones. -

35. Caraka, Cikitsā, XXX.289-91. 36. Caraka, Sūtra, I.1. 37. Sūtra, I.25. 38. Jyotirmitra, op.cit., p. 6.

Sämkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 133

Ātreya The introductory sentence in the chapters mentions Atreya as expounding them.39 There is evidently no case for the chapters being in the original words of Atreya. His student Agnivesa presented the exposition and attributed it to Atreya. This style was retained by Caraka after revision. The full name of Atreya appears as Punarvasu Atreya.40 He is also named as Cāndrabhāgl or Cadrabhāga.41 Krsnātreya possibly refers to his personal name. He is to be distinguished from Bhiksu Ātreya, as the two are mentioned together in some cases.42 It is not possible to give specific details about Atreya and fix his date. His name implies that Atri was his father. He is sometimes - mentioned as Atriputra, Attisunu and Atryātmaja. According to Filliozat,43 Atri, the father of Atreya, is to be identified with sage Atri, referred to in the Rgueda.44 Merely on the basis of the introductory sentence in the chapters it cannot be dogmatised that all the philosophical principles in the text were originally expounded by Atreya. We will be oh surer grounds about expositions which are attributed to him in the discussions in the parisads. One,line of approach can be to; infer even vaguely Ātreyas philosophical views, from the expositions made by his disciples. According to tradition Atreya thaught Ayurveda to his six disciples, of which three, Agnivesa, Bhela and Harita, are, associated with

1 39. iti ha smaha bhagavdn-dtreyah. 40. This was possibly his naksatra name. 41. These are taken to refer to his mother or the river or region associated with his birth .. 42. Carakd; Sūtra, XXV:24t Hoernle, Studies in Ancient Indian Medicine, Osteology, pp. 7, 8, identifies the two. For a full discussion see dyotirmitra, "Atreya and his Period", Nagârjuna. 43. The Classical Doctrine of Indian Medicine, p. 7. 44. Yogendranatha on Caraka, Sutra, I.7 suggests that the name Kranatreya refers to his being the son of Krsnatri, but this is opposed to rules of Sanskrit grammar.

134 Retrieving Samkhya History

three separate Ayurveda samhitas. The Bhilasamhita is known from a single manuscript, which is incomplete and faulty. The available Haritasamhita cannot be the composition of a disciple of Ätreya; it was written by a later author who adopted the name of Harita. Both the samhitas are without an account of philosophical views. We do not find any reference to Ātreya as a Samkhya philosopher, excepting a reference in the account of Samkhya in Gunaratna's Saddarsanąsamuccaya to Atreyatantra as a Samkhya treatise.45 Atri is named as a sage who went to Indra and learnt Ayurveda from him.46 We can never know the principles communicated to Atri. We aré not sure if this Atri was the father of Atreya and subscribed to Sāmkhya views but it may be noted that according to Aśvaghoșa,47 Atri did not belong to the discipline of medicine, which was actually propounded by Ātreya. Agnivesa, as a student of Punarvasu Atreya, will belong to the 'same period. This receives support from the fact that he is mentioned in the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad48 and is included intwoganapathas in the Astādhyayi.49.

Agniveśa and Caraka In the Caraka-santhita portions contributed by"Agnivesa' and Caraka are difficult to separate. Jyotirmitra5° gives Cafaka the credit for the philosophical passages in the text. According to him, Caraka introduced philosophical elements to strengthen the medicinal principles and.transformed it into a lasting achievement. But, there is no definite argument in support of this view. The philosophical principles are an 'intrinsic part of the Ayurvedic 45. P.Chakravarti, op.cit., p. 54 raises doubt about the authenticity of this h ' statement as Gunaratna himself, in anbther content, mentions it as a treatise of Vaisesika. 46. Caraka, Ciktsā, 1.4.3; Kāsyapasamhitā; Chowkhamba, 1953, p. 61. 47. Buddhacarita, I.42. 48. II.6.2. 49. IV.1.105; II.4.68. 50. Op.cit., pp. 7, 20.

Samkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 135

system and are the foundations on which the details are built-up in different chapters. The chapters, in which philosophical ideas are expounded, also.have the colophon saying that the treatise was composed by Agnivesa and revised by Caraka. The philosophical principles in many cases, are enunciated in the course of discussions in parisads. The accounts of the parisads are taken to be among the earliest parts of the text and were probably written by Agnivesa. Thus, we may conclude that philosophical principles were presented by Agnivesa in the original treatise. Caraka is to be given credit for systematising them and in some cases, elaborating them. We cannot determine the nature and extent of these new features. There is no way to determine the new details added by Caraka.

Date of Agniveśa and Caraka We will not enter into a full discussion about the possible dates of Ātreya, Agnivesa and Caraka. Thè date of Caraka continues to be a subject of debate. The Chronology 'committee of the National Institute of Sciences of India concluded that AD 100 is the date for the composition of the' Caraka-samhita. This view is based mainly on the reference in the Chinese translation of Buddhist Tripitaka to a physician named Tehe-lokia (=Caraka) in the court of the Kuşāņa king Kaniska, whose accession is deațed in AD 78. 'This evidence, first pointed out lby"S. Levi,51~has. been .followed by subsequent writers. But, the internal evidence, of the, Caraka- samhita does not indicate that its author belonged to the first century of the Christian era and was associated with the court of the renowned Buddhist king Kaniska.62 Caraka literally means, one who moves-about. Possibly it was not a personal-name, but referred to a physician who wandered from place to place. Panini mentions a Caraka. Persons with the name of Caraka are referred to in many sources, not necessarily connected with Ayurveda. There was a Caraka-sākhā of the Krsna Yajurveda.

51. Journal Asiatique, Nov .- Dec. 1886, pp. 451ff; Indian Antiquary, XXXII, pp. 382 ff. 52. P.V. Sharma, Āyurveda ka vaijnānika Itihāsa, pp. 116-18.

136 Retrieving Sämkhya History

An ancient tradition equates Caraka with Patanjali, to whom are attributed both the Yogasutra and the Mahabhasya on the Astādhyayi.53 Without examining the details of this tradition, we may point out that there are serious objections to the identification of the two Patanjalis, the author of the Yogasutra and the author of the Mahabhasya. P.V .. Sharma4 raises arguments showing that Caraka of the Caraka-samhita could not have been identical with either the author of the Mahabhasya or with that of the Yogasutra. However, on the basis of an analysis of the internal evidence of the text, he places Caraka in the Sunga period or a little earlier, in the period between the Mauryas and the Sungas, i.e., the third century BC.55' Some scholars pull Caraka further back, mainly on the basis of the name Caraka occurring in the Astadhyayt56 of Panini, R.K! Sharma and B. Dash67 place Caraka in the eighth century Bc. This date will vary according to the date which one accepts for Pānini. Jyotirmitra68 suggests a date around 1000 Bc. A very early date will bring Caraka close to the times of Atreya and Agnivesa. The need fora revision of the Agnivesatantraby Carakavcould; have arisen only sometime .after the' original composition. It is to be emphasised that the arguments for placing Caraka much earlier are:baced on traces of eatlier elements in the text which actually were a survival of Atreya-Agnivesa times.' The prestige of Agnivesa and his tontributions was so great that even after the revision by Caraka his name was retained in the colophon to the chápters. There are indications that up to a late petiod it was the name of Agnivesa and not that of Caraka which was remembered. Thus, in the Navanttdka the prescriptions, which are found in the Caraka-sdmhita also, are attributed to Agnivesa

53. See Jyotirmitra, op. cit., p. 23, 54. Op. cit., pp. 111-13. 55. Op. cit., pp. 115-19. 57. IV. 3.107. 58. Carqka-samhta, Prfeace, p. xxxviii.

Sāmkhya Adoption by Ayurveda Teachers 137

and not to Caraka.59 Some quotations attributed to Agnivesa occur in later writings,60 which may suggest that in some quarters the original work of Agnivesa survived the revision by Caraka. But, the argument is not compelling. Many quotations from several important texts cannot be traced in the briginal work. Passages, even of authoritative texts are known to have dropped out in course of centuries. Hence, it may be suggested that the quótations in question were intended to be from the revised text of Agnivesa which later came to be known under the name of Caraka. We cannot fix the date when the text of'Agnivesa was named after Caraka. It was possibly quite sometime before Drdhabala. This alone can explain the loss of thirteen chapters ih the Cikitasasthana and the whole of the Kalpasthana and the Siddhisthana, requiring Drdhabala to write them afresh and add them to the text. Drdhabala himself mentions Kapilabala as the name of his father."1 On the basis of reference to Kapilabala in the Atangasamgraha of Vagbhata and quotation's from Drdhabala in it, Drdhabala is taken to have been earlier that Vagbhata P.V. Sharma62 assighs Vagbhata to the sixth century and hence places Drdhabala in the Gupta period in the fourth century.63

Philosophical Contribution of Agnivesa and Caraka On the question of the specific contributions of thetwo phases of the text, the original composition and the revision, historians ofAyurveda

59. Baņabhatța in his Harșacarita mentions as physicians Paunarvasava (a son or student of Punarvasu), which may refer to Agnivesa. 60. Cakrapāņi .and Vijayarakșita (twelfth century) as mentioned by Jyotirmitra op.cit., p. 20. 61. Caraka, Cikitsā, XXX.289-91. 62 Op.cit., pp. 121-6, 63. According to Jyotirmitra, op.cit., p. 27, Vagbhata belonged to the fourth century and Drdhabala to the first half of the fourth century. R.K. Sharma and B. Dash, op.cit., p. xxxix place Vagbhata in AD 300 and Caraka before this date and suggest that Drdhabala may be Caraka, the second, who was the court physician of king Kaniska. Hoernle places Drdhabala in the ninth century after Madhava; but contra see P.V. Sharma, op.cit., p. 122, fn. 1.

138 Retrieving Samkhya History

have not paid serious attention to the evidence of the nature of Samkhya in the text, The text does refer to the views of the early Samkhya philosophers.“ This apparently came from the pen of Caraka. But, we cannot ferret out all the passages recording the views of early Samkhya teachers. It is to be noted that the Samkhya system in the revised text is earlier than the standardised exposition presented by Isvarakrsna. The details, given by Agnivesa initially but allowed to remain in the text, indicate that Caraka also subscribed to them. Thus, the exposition of Samkhya in the Caraka- samhita and its expounders Atreya-Agnivesa and Caraka belonged to an early phase in the history of Samkhya. These Samkhya principles have much in common with the accounts in the Moksadharmaparva section in the Santiparva of the Mahābharata, particularly those ascribed to Pancasikha, and those in the Buddhacarita recording the views of Arada. Dasgupta and, following him, other scholars could not evaluate properly the account in the Caraka-samhita, because of their fixed view that Caraka belonged to the reign of Kaniska. Accordingly they ascribed the Samkhya in the Buddhacarita to its author Asvaghosa and not to its proclaimed expounder Arada. Likewise, they dated the Santiparva account of Samkhya on the basis of the date assigned to the inclusion of Santiparva in the Mahabharata, without realising the force of the argument that there are differences in the accounts of the individual Samkhya teachers, and that they are referrred to as ancient narratives (itihāsam purātanam),

Conclusion

Thus, the Samkhya account in the Caraka-samhita is to be considered as representing an early phase in Samkhya history, to which belonged other Samkhya teachers, such as Pancasikha and Arāda, who preceded Buddha. In connection with the history of Ayurveda, the evidence is to be interpreted as placing Caraka in the age of the Buddha. We will not be erring much if we place Caraka around 600 BC and Åtreya-Agnivesa around 800 BC.

64. Sūtra, XXV-15.

7

Arada - An Ignored Pre-Buddha Sāmkhya Teacher

Sāmkhya in the Buddhacarita THE Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa records the philosophical views of a Samkhya teacher, who belonged to the pre-Buddha times. Buddha, before he received enlightenment, approached Arada for the knowledge, which may help him get emancipation from suffering. In reply Arada expounded his philosophy, which is to be found in Canto XII of the Buddhacarita. The Buddhacarita does not refer to Arada as a Samkhya teacher, nor does he himself claim to expound Samkhya views. Modern scholars of Samkhya have been so much obsessed with the exposition of Samkhya principles in the Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrsna that they have failed to do justice to accounts of Samkhya, which show major deviations on important points. This is the reason why earlier authorities on Samkhya, such as Garbe, A.B. Keith and S.N. Dasgupta, did not take any notice of the account of Samkhya in the Buddhacarita.' E. Johnston, who minutely analysed the account in the Buddhacarita, demonstrated that it contains genuine Samkhya

1. U.V.Shastri and A.P. Mishra in their Histories of Samkhya Philosophy (in Hindi) have considered Samkhya views and scholars mentioned in various sources, but are silent about Arada's views in the Buddhacarita

140 Retrieving Samkhya History

principles.ª He points out close similarities between the doctrines of Asvaghosa and those of Caraka-Pancasikha.1 P. Chakravarti holds that there was a school of Samkhya which influenced alike Asvaghosa, Caraka, the Epic and the authorities cited in the Yogabhasya. J.A.B van Buitenen also interprets the account in the Buddhacarita as representing a distinct tradition of Samkhya- Yoga. Whereas Samkhya is often viewed in terms of a theory of 'horizontal' evolution of buddhi in three bhavas or gunas, the present text represents eightfold prakrti, which later led to a theory of vertical evolution. G.J. Larsonf argues that Asvaghosa, along with Caraka and Pancasikha, represents an old tradition of Samkhya-Yoga, which is yet in a fluid or chaning condition. He finds the account in the Buddhacarita to be closer to the doctrines of the Moksadharmaparva and the Gita. An analysis of the account in the Buddhacarita shows that, though it differs from the Samkhya system as standardised by Isvarakrsna, it represents a particular type of formulation of Samkhya principles. Arada himself alludes to the Samkhya character of his teachings, when he remarks that they have been upheld by Jaigişavya, Janaka and Vrddha-Parasara, whose identity as Samkhya teachers is confirmed by independent sources. In the narrative Arada uses the expression atmacintaka (those who deliberate upon dtman) for those who were proficient in expounding the philosophical system.8 In some other texts we notice similar terms for teachers of the Samkhya system." It is clear from the account itself that Arada presents the twin systems of Samkhya and Yoga. Thus, after describing Samkhya principles in XII.15-44,

2 Early Samkhya, p. 8. 3 Op.cit., p. 10, 4. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 109 5. JAOS, LXXVI (1957), pp. 22-3. 6. Classical Samkhya, pp. 106-8 7. Buddhacarita, XI1.67. 8 Ibid., XII.20. 9 P. Chakravarti, op.cit., pp. 17-19

Arada- An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 141

he says1 that he will now discuss the same dharma, but by a different (anya) method (kalpa). What follows" is an account of the Yoga system. Arada makes it clear that he does not lay down a different system; he simply presents an other approach within the system described earlier by him. This suits the relationship between Samkhya and Yoga. They are not two separate systems, but are two different aspects of one and the same system. Modern researches have exposed the erroneous character of the view the Samkhya was always monolithic in form, with fixed principles which show a unilinear development or elaboration, Scholars have to ferretted out passages referring to Samkhya views earlier than the Samkhyakarika. These sources prove that Samkhya had a long and rich history, which witnessed a wide variety of views on several vital issues. It is clear that an account of philosophical views may differ from the Samkhyakārika, yet it retains its claim to be a Samkhya system. This is the case with the account of the teachings of Arada in the Buddhacarita.

Arāda and not Asvaghoșa as Expounder

The modern studies of the Buddhacarita account have not led to its proper evaluation in the history of Samkhya. While analysing it scholars always emphsise the text, the Buddhacarita, attributing the account to Asvaghosa, with a very casual reference to Arāda, but without giving him credit for the authorship of the principles. Hence, these views are ascribed to the first century of the Christian era, and not to the times of Arada. No doubt, our source ofinformation for this account ofSamkhya in the Buddhacarita, composed by Asvaghosa. The question, now, is whether the date of the composition of the text is to be taken as the date also of its original exposition by Arada. There is no reason for believing that Asvaghosa created the details of the system and attributed them to Arada. He could not have gained anything from this nor have added to the glory of Budha and Buddhism, There was

10 XII. 45. 11. Buddhacarito, XIL45-67.

142 Retrieving Samkhya History

a justification for it if Arada had been a great celebrity, enjoying a respectable following even in the times of Asvaghosa. Asvaghosa was expected to imagine the details and weave a system, if Arāda had actually influenced Buddha's thought. Hence, we cannot say that Asvaghosa authored these principles. He is to be given credit for presenting an account of the teachings of Arada. We have reasons to believe that in doing so Asvaghosa tried to be faithful to the original exposition by Arada. We can allow Asvaghosa, as a poet, under the exigencies of his poetic composition, to omit some details. But, cannot visualise that he took any liberty with the details of the teachings and the use of technical terms. The way modern scholars have mixed up Arada and Asvaghosa is noticed in their discussion of the absence of a reference to gunas in the Buddhacarita. Keith," on this ground, observes that Asvaghosa expounds a school of Samkhya which does not speak of thegunas. The explanation offered by P. Chakravarti1a is revealing. He points out that the account is brief and ignores many fundamental doctrines of Samkhya, such as satkarya theory and the pramanas and their varieties, and that Asvaghosa was writing a kauya and not a philosophical treatise. To prove that Asvaghosa was not ignorant of the guna theory Chakravarti adds that in Canto XXVI of the Budhacarita the doctrine of the gunas is refuted. It is not realised that the question is not whether Asvaghosa knew the guna theory. The fact is that in Canto XII, which purports to present Arada's views on Samkhya, the theory is not mentioned, which would mean that, according to Asvaghosa, Arada did not assign it any place in his account. Larson" says that the absence of a reference to gunas means that Asvaghosa describes 'a view of Samkhya which has no need of a guna theory' and not that he was unaware of it. He, thus, confines his discussion to Canto XII of the text, but does not think in terms of Arada, attributing the authorship of the principles to Asvaghosa. H.S. Joshi"5 differs from all these

12 Samkhya System, pp. 25-6. 13 Op.cit., p. 110 14. Op.cit., p. 107 15 Sämkhyayoga-darsana ka Jırnoddhara, p. 240.

Arada - An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 143

scholars in recognising Arada as representing the nineteenth sub- branch of the main branch of Samkhya.

A Case for Arada It may possibly be argued that Asvaghosa was not expected to have on access to the original views of Arada. We do not find an account of the views of Arada in any other source. The Moksadharmaparva in the Mahabharata has preserved the views of several Samkhya teachers. In some cases these accounts are introduced as ancient history. But the relevant portions in the Mahabharata are by no means exhaustive. We know of many Samkhya teachers whose views are not recorded in the Epic. Arada was one such teacher.

Arāda and a Samkhya School An important reason for this neglect was possibly that Arada did not belong to any distinct Samkhya school, nor did he set-up a school of his followers. J.A.B. van Buitenen speaks of the Samkhya- Yoga in the Buddhacarita representing a separate tradition. On the basis of the similarities between the doctrines of Caraka- Pancasikha and Asvaghosa, Larson suggests an old tradition of Samkhya-Yogain Caraka-Pancasikha and Asvaghosa. P.Chakravarti also speaks of a common school of Samkhya influencing Asvaghosa, Caraka, the Epic and the authorities cited in the Yogabhasya. But, these modern theories are not supported by any specific mention of a Samkhya school, to which Arada belonged or a common school influencing Arada and others. The lists of Samkhya teachers, recorded independently by a number of texts, do not contain the name of Arada. The list of teachers-students in some commentaries on the Samkhyakarika may imply Samkhya traditions representing Samkhya schools, but Arada is conspicuous by his absence in them. In the Buddhacarita Arada himself says that Jaigisavya, Janaka and Vrddha-Parasara also held the views which he preached. This has the appearance of a Samkhya tradition; but, there is no clear reference to a school and its expounder. All the three teachers were contemporaries, possibly senior, of Arāda. Arâda simply suggests that all these four had similar, but not identical, views.

144 Retrieving Samkhya History The absence of reference to Arada or his views-in later records suggests that he did not establish a school. Though negative evidence cannot be conclusive, as it can never be exhaustive, the fact that the Yuktidipika is silent about Arada is not without significance. It may be argued that the early Pali literature does not contain a detailed account of the teachings of Arada which could have served as the basis for Asvaghosa. In the Canonical literature there is no known reference which may require an elaborate treatment of the views of Arāda. The Majjhimanikaya16 has a referençe to Alāra- kalāma, who may be identified with Arāda, Alāra-kaläma, when asked by Buddha, says that he had reached up to the plane of akiñcana (naught). In the Buddhacarita Arāda describes the final stage as akincanya. This establishes a link between the account in the Buddhacarita and the Pali canonical literature and indicates the possibility of Arada's exposition looking back to pre-Buddha times.17

Arāda's Philosophical Views Arāda begins- by defining, sattva (being) to mean only prakrti (primary matter), vikara (modifications), birth, death and old age (X|I.17). Prakrti consists of pañcabhütas (five elements), ahamkāra (ego-principle), buddht (intellect) and avyakta (unseen power),18 The vikaras include the five senses, the five objects, of the senses, the five organs of action, and the manas (mind).19 That which is conscious is called ksetrajna (knower of the field), because it knows the field.20 Vyakta is that which is subject to birth, old age, disease and death; its reverse is known to be avyakta. Ajnana (ignorance), karman (activity) and trsnd (desire) are the causes of the cycle of

16. 26-Ariyapariyesanasuțta. 1 17, Keith, op.cit. 18.,- P. Chakravarti, op.cit., p. 110. 19. Buddhacarita, XII.39- hetvābhāva phalābhâva iti vijnidtumarhași. 20. Kārikā, 47-8.

Aräda - An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 145

existence.21 He, who abides in these three, cannot transcend existence. Arada mentions eight reasons why the self gets involved in existence and suffering and explains them. These are: vipratyaya (misunderstanding), ahamkara (wrong attribution of personality), samdeha (confusion of thought), abhisamplava (wrong conjunction), aviseșa (lack of discrimination), anupāya (wrong means), samga (attachment) and abhyavapäta (falling away) (24-32). Avidyā (ignorance) is described as five-fold; its varieties, tamas, moha, mahāmoha, támiśra, and andhatāmiśra, are enumerated and explained (33-37). For abandoning the rushing torrent of birth and death and obtaining the everlasting sphere the ksetrajña has to acquire right knowledge which means properly discriminating the group of four, pratibuddha (intelligent), apratibuddha (one who lacks intelligence); vyakta (seen) and avaykta (unseen)(40-41). The state of liberation is the condition of parama-brahma (supreme absolute).who is described as being without any attribute, as real and immutable (42). This is followed by an account of'another' method. Though it is not named as such, it signifies yoga. Here we have an account of the practices and techniques of yoga. The practice of four kinds of meditation gradually leads one to emancipation.

Evaluation of Arada's Vięws In discussing the philosophical system of Arāda we canhot make the absence of a reference to any point our basis. The brief account is not expected to do justice to the details of the system. The absence may be purely accidental, or possibly the point was not so elaborately discussed as to attract the notice of Asvaghosa. 'The prominent Samkhya principles, which are mentioned as not occurring here, are the guna theory,"'the theory of satkarya, the pramanas and their varieties,23 and the tanmafras. It may, however, be pointed out that the theory of satkarya is clearly implied, when Arāda says

21. XII.308.5, 7, 17; XII.306.44; XII.307.48. 22. XII.318. 23. Op. cit., pp. 103-7.

146 Retrieving Samkhya History

that if the cause is absent (hetvabhava).2 It is quite likely that some points were present in a nascent form, but had not been elaborated into a full philosophical principle. There are some distinctive views in the account given by Arāda which are opposed to the general understanding of the Samkhya philosophy. The first is the concept of sattuas. Sattuas are quite different from the tattvas, which characterise the Sämkhya system. They signify basic realities and include purusa, prakrti, birth, death and old age. Second, prakrti, here, differs from its classical notion in Samkhya, where it signifies one ofthe two basic categoires. Prakrti is conceived as a plural notion and includes within it pañcabhūtas, ahamkāra, buddhi, and auyakta. Third, Arada does not use the technical' term purusa. Instead, he speaks of ksetrajñas as individual selves. 'Fourth, though essentially dualistic, the account does not specifically mention the concept of dualism of purușa and prakrti. The use of the term atma-cintaka for the teachers of the system is also significant. Besides individual selves, Arada refers to the Cosmic Self ot parama-brahma. Fourth, Arāda distinguishes -between ksetra and ksetrajna on one hand, and between uyakta and avyakta on the other. Fifth, avyakta is neither higher than prakrti, nor identical with'it, but is a constituent of prakrti. Sixth, Arāda classifies prakrti and its evolutes into two: prakrti which is eightfold, and vikara (modification), which comprises the ten organs, manas and the five objects of the senses. Seventh, Arāda mentions the five objects of senses as tattvas, Eighth, Arāda regards ajñāna, karma and trsnā as the cause of the cycle of existence. He enumerates eight factors for, the same and goes on to define them. Ninth, Arāda mentions avidya (ignorance) as being five-fold and enumerates its varieties. According to the Sāmkhyatattvakaumudt, Vārsaganya laid down the concept of five- fold avidya. We find that the Samkhyakarika25 lists there five varieties not as avidya but as viparyaya, classifying these varieties into further sub-varieties. Tenth, the use of the terminology of vyakta and avyakta, pratibuddha and apratibuddha is another

24. Op.cit., pp. 108-9. 25. P. Chakravarti, op.cit., p. 109.

Arāda - An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 147

distinctive characteristic of Arada's system. The term auyakta is found in some other accounts of Sāmkhya principles. Vyakta, as opposed to avyakta, can be recognised; but it is not evidenced in other parallel accounts of Samkhya. The terms pratibuddha and apratibuddha have parallels in the accounts of Samkhya attributed to Vasiştha26 and Yājnayalkya7 in the Mahabhārata. The Epic references use the terms buddha, apratibuddha and budhyamāna and show slight difference in their specific meanings.

Features of Early Samkhya in Arāda's Exposition Inthe account of Samkhya Arāda expounds there are many features which refer to an'early stage in the history of Sämkhya, much earlier than the standardisation brought about by Isvarakrsna. In the first place, here Samkhya and Yoga are intrinsically connected. They are not two different systems, but two different ways in the same system. The account refers to the stage of Samkhya-Yoga in - the history of Samkhya. This stage is evidenced by the Gitd and many chapters in the Santiparva of the Mahābharata claiming to represent ancient history. Second, P. Chakravarti28 has pointed out some striking similarities between the system expounded by Arada and the account found in the Sarirasthana of the Caraka-samhita. These include classification of avyakta and its evolutes into two groups, counting the objects of senses as tattvas, omission of tanmatras, distinction between kşetra and kşetrajña and avyakta and uyakta, enumeration of eight factors for causing worldly existence, and the identification of the stage of literation with Brahman. The date of Caraka is a subject of controversy. The whole text of the Caraka-samhita cannot be assigned to one specific date; portions belonging to different periods are found mixed up in the i

text. Traditionally also three distinct layers are recognised in it. Caraka is credited with the revision of the text, originally written

26. G.J. Larson, op.cit., pp. 107-8. 27. Loc. cit. 28. XII.67.

148 Retrieving Samkhya History by Agniveśa. Agniveśa presents the Samkhya principles as expounded by Atreya. Later, the text as revised by. Caraka was completed by Drdhabala. Thus, the account of Samkhya found in the Caraka-samhita is to be assigned to the period of Agnivesa'or even earlier to that of Atreya. Third, P. Chakravarti29 points out the close relation between Arāda's Samkhya and the Samkhya accounts in the Mahabharata. This includes the concepts of vyakta and avyakta, technical terms such as pratibuddha, apratibuddha and the like, the classification of tattvas into two groups of eight primary constituents and sixteen modifications, the negation of the tanmatras, and the mentioning of ignorance (ajñāna), activity (karma) and desire (trsnā) as the cause of the cycle of,existence. In the case of the Mahabharata also chronology is a very vexed problem. Generally th'e broad time-bracket of 400 BC to AD 400 is suggested, but it is believed'that the text had received its present form by the end of the second century. Here also three main stages in the growth of the'text, admitted by tradition, are Jaya, Bharata and Mahabharata. Many chapters in the Säntiparva are among the latest to be added to the text, possibly sometime between 200 Bc and AD 200. But the date of their incorporation in the text need not be the date of their composition also in all the cases. The account found in them-may look back to earlier times. In some cases, including the chapters of the Samkhya account, we have an explicit statement that they are part of ancient history. Hence, the close similarity; on certain important points, between Arada's exposition and. the Samkhya chapters in the Mahabharata envisages an early date for Arāda.

Date of Arāda The suggestion that Asvaghosa (Arada), Caraka, the Epic and the authorities cited in the Yogabhasya were influenced by a common school of Sämkhya30 or that Caraka, Pañcasikha and Asvaghosa (Arāda) represent and old tradition in a fluid or changing condition 29. XII.229. 30. U.V. Shastri, op.cit., pp. 584-92.

Aräda -- An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 149

which was influenced by a common Samkhya-Yoga31 makes a case for Arāda being an early Sāmkhya teacher; but this is not helpful in determining his.date. Larson32 narrows the scope slightly when he describes Asvaghosa's.(Arāda's) treatment as representing 'a somewhat later version of the kinds of speculation found in Caraka- Pañcasikha'. This line of argument, though not very definitive, indicates that Arada belonged to the same phase of Samkhya which witnessed Pancasikha and Atreya (or Agnivesa) and that possibly he was a little later than these. But, there is no evidence which may help us calculate the time-gap separ'ating Arada from his elder contemporaries, We cometo a similar.conclusion about the chronological position of Arada with the help of the testimony of the Buddhacarita.33.On his own admission, Arāda did not precede Jaigīsavya, Janaka and Vrddha-Parasara. We know from the Mahabharata3 that Jaigīsavya was a senior contemporary of Devala and Avatya and was possibly a contemporary of Pańcasikha also. Janaka'was associated with Mithila. We find reference to several kings with the name of Janaka. The Moksadharmaparva of the Mahabharata connects Janaka with the exposition ofSamkhya.35 Janaka, the philosopher king, is known from the Upanisads also. Videha, with its capital at Mithila, later became a constituent member of the federal republic of Samvajji. Janaka, as the king,of Videha, has to be placed beforeits incorporation in Vajji. This would place Janaka in pre-Buddha times. Vrddha-Parāśara is generally identified with Pancašikha.36 Pancasikha was one of the earliest Samkhya teachers. He was the pupil of Asuri, who himself was Kapila's direct disciple. The

31. Mbh., XII.320.24. 32. XII.220-2, 224. 33. P. 175. 34. .Op.cit., p. 113. 35. XII.218.32-3. : 36: XII.23.

150 Retrieving Sämkhya History

Mahabharata37 refers to him as a revered Samkhya teacher, Janaka being his pupil. The Yuktidipika mentions him as the teacher of Janaka, Vasistha and many others. P. Chakravarti points out that 'Pancasikha passed as a mythical figure even in the days of Buddha'.

The account of the dialogue between Janaka and Pancasikha, as recorded in the Mahabharata, would suggest that all these philosophers were not necessarily much separated in time from one another. They were contemporaries, as senior or junior, with the result that one could react to the views of another. In this account Pancasikha is mentioned as reporting that some people regard avidya, karma and trsna as the cause for the rebirth. In the Buddhacarita Arada expresses the same view in almost identical terms. Pancasikha does not name the author of the view he is going to refute, but it can be easily surmised that he is most likely referring to the views of Arada. There is nothing improbable in it. If there are contemporaries, a senior may as well refer to the views of his junior. This is quite compatible with the evidence of the Buddhacarita in which Arada refers of Jaigisavya, Janaka and Vrddha-Parasara also holding views expounded by him.

Conclusion

The above discussion indicates that Arada is to be associated with early Samkhya teachers who belonged to pre-Buddha time. The Buddhacarita very clearly says that he was a senior contemporary of Buddha. On this basis we may place Arada around the period 600- 520 Bc, which is not incompatible with other available references to him. Thus, was see that Arada was a pre-Buddha Samkhya philosopher. He belonged to a phase of Samkhya history when

37. P. Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 114 takes it to be an allusion to the doctrine of Buddhism and hence argues that the reference will require Pancasikha to be placed after Buddha, It is to be noted that for comparison Chakravarti refers to as passage in Candrakirti's Madhyamakaurtti.

Arada - An Ignored Pre-Buddha Samkhya Teacher 151

Samkhya-yoga had a joint form. Samkhya had not acquired the fixed character, which came to be associated with its name. Arada possibly did not formulate a school of his own, but had his distinctive views, which, on many points, differed not only from the later standardised version of Samkhya but also from the views of some of his contemporaries.

8

Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas

Paurika

YUKTIKDĪPIKĀ ON PAURIKA THE name of Paurika as a Samkhya teacher is known from the Yuktidipika.1 He is included in the list of teachers who fill up the gap between Pancasikha and Iśvarakrşņa. The Yuktidipikā2 preserves a quotation from his treatise. According to this passage, for each purusa there is a separate pradhana (prakrti), which creates itsown body (sarira) and other tattvas. When theirpradhāna, endowed with mahat and sarira, prevails, other objects also exist; with its disappearance others also disappear. In this quotation Paurika is referred to as a Sāmkhya teacher (sđmkhyacaryà).

ȘADDARŚANASAMUCCAYA EVIDENCĘ It is interesting to find that cunaratnasuri, in his commentary on the Saddarsanasamuccaya,3 attributes the theory of the plurality

1. P. 175. 1

2. maulikyasāmkhyā hyātmānamātmānam prati prthakpradhānam vadanti, uttare tu samkhyāh sarvātmasvapyekam nityam pradhānamiti prapannah 1-p. 169: 3. pratipuruşamanyat pradhāņam, sartrādyartham karoti l teșđāca māhātmyasarlrapradhānam yadā pravarttate tadetarānyapi,

-p.169 tannivrttau ca teşamapi nivrttih, iti paurikah sāmkhyācaryo manyate il

154 Retrieving Samkhya History

of prakrtis to ancient teachers of Samkhya. According to this passage, the maulikya-Samkhyas expound that for each atman (purusa) there is a separate pradhana, but the later (uttara) Samkhyas uphold that in all the atmans there is only one permanent pradhāna. The two references to the same theory of the plurality of prakrtis may be equated. This would suggest that Paurika was among the early Samkhya teachers. This implication has been opposed by U.V. Shastri, followed by A.P. Mishra.5 Shastri takes maulikyas in the literal sense of mula meaning origin. According to him, there is no evidence that Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha, the first three Samkhya teachers, subscribed to the theory of plurality of prakrtis. He suggests that the reading maulikya for Paurika as a mistake on the part of Gunaratnasuri, who had no knowledge of the Samkhya teacher Paurika and imagined a dichotomy, on the question of prakrti, between the earlier and later Samkhya teachers. We do not find any reason to reject the clear testimony of Gunaratnasuri and seek shelter under the imagined explanation. We know from independent sources that the history of Samkhya reveals wide difference of opinion on several important issues, indicating that earlier Samkhya teachers upheld views which were radically different from those expounded by later Samkhya teachers. This difference is often underlined by referring to the unique views of adya-sāmkhyas or vrddha-sāmkhyas. There is a phonetic similarity between paurika and maulikya. But whereas paurika is in the singular number, maulikya has been used in the plural. The difficulty arises when we take the term maulikya strictly literally as referring to the earliest teachers or to the founder exponents. There is no problem if the term is interpreted to mean 'ancient' or 'early'. The natural meaning of the reference in the commentary of Gunaratnasuri is that, among early Samkhya teachers, there were many who subscribed to the theory of the plurality of prakrtis. Paurika was not done in expounding this

4. Samkhyadarsana kā Itihāsa, pp. 629-31. 5. Sāmkhyadarsana ki Aitihāsika Paramparā, p. 17.

Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas 155

principle, though his was possibly the best known presentation.

DATE OF PAURIKA

We do not have any information about Paurika, his life and times. Paurika was his name, but we cannot be sure about his background, the social or geographical group implied by the derivative meaning of the term. The date of Paurika is not known. The Yuktidipika mentions him as being post-Pancasikha and pre-Isvarakrsņa in time. This list of Samkhya teachers in the Yuktidipika has no pretensions to a chronological order; hence the position of Paurika in the list cannot be used for calculating his date. The author ofthe Yuktidipika seems to discuss earlier views on various Samkhya to pies. This in itself may suggest an early date for Paurika. This is supported by the fact that in the Yuktidipika he is referred to with a due show of respect as a sāmkhyācārya. The attribution of Paurika's distinctive view to the Maulikyasamkhyas by Gunaratnasuri will also strengthen the suggestion that Paurika was one of the early Sāmkhya teachers. The Yogabhasya on the Yogasutra helps us considerably narrow down the limits for the date of Paurika. Vyasa, in his commentary,6 quotes from Varșaganya an argument to refute the theory of the plurality of prakrti. He says that there is no case for separate ultimate causes (mülaprthakatvam) because there is no differences in form (mürti), interposition (uyavadhi) and class (jati). It seems that the theory of the plurality of prakrti had a fair currency among the Samkhya philosophers. Among these thinkers Paurika enjoyed a prominent position. Thus, Paurika may reasonably be placed before Vārsganya. No doubt, the date of Varsaganya has not been fixed with certainty. But definitely he is known to have been an early Samkhya teacher, who founded a school of his principles. In any case, the evidence of the Yogabhasya helps us in preparing a chart of relative chronology for early Samkhya teachers.

6. mürtivyavadhijatibhedabhavannasti mūlaprthakatvamiti varsaganyah 1- III. 53

156 Retrieving Samkhya History G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharyaplace Paurika in the time- bracket of AD100-300. They envisage that in the phase of Samkhya as a technical philosophical system culminating.in the Samkhyakārikā there was a sub-phase of pre-Kārika Sāmkhya which included. Paurika, Pancadhikarana and Patanjali. We have pointed out that the proposed time-bracket errs on the side of being late and have suggested 500-400 Bc roughly for Pañcadhikarana.8 This may hold good for Paurika as well. This is supported by the fact, pointed out above, that Gunaratnasuri ascribes to the Maulikyasamkhyas-the principle of plurality of prakrtis, which is known to be the characteristic view of Paurika. Larson and Bhattacharya place Värsaganya also in this time- 1 bracket. We have elsewhere argued for an earlier date for Vārșagaņya.9 Paurika seems to be senior to him. The criticism ofthe theory of plurality of prakrtis by Varsaganya10 would require us to place Paurika around 450 BC. Pañcādhikaraņa SOURCES The name of Pancadhikarana does not occur in any ancient text listing Sāmkhya philosophers. The Mātharavrtti, Jayamangalā and the Chinese translation of Paramartha's commentary do not include his name in the lineage of Samkhya scholars between Pancasikha and Isvarakrana. The list of sages belonging to the Samkhya tradition who are entitled to tarpand is also without his name. In the Mahabharata we have names of many Samkhya scholars, but Pancadhikarana does not occur here. We do not know of any text attributed to him. It is only the Yuktidīpika on the Samkhyakārika which refers to țhe yiews of, Pañcädhikaraņa at eight placeș.11 Besides this, 7. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosdphies,.Vol. IV-Samkhya, pp. 9-13. 8. See under hdg. Pañcadhikaraņa., 9. See infra chapter. 17. 10. Vyāsa on III.53. 11. P. 175.

Early Samkhya Ācāryas 157

Pantādhikaraņa and his principles find a place in some texts independent of the Samkhya stream. Padmapāda, in his commentary on the Prapancasaratantra;12 refers to the views of the followers of Pañcadhikaraņa about the ksetrañja entering the womb through 1 the blood and semen of his parent. A second reference has been traced in the-Naresvarapariksa.13 A third reference is found in the commentary of Helārāja, the son of Bhūtirāja, on the Vākyapadīya.14 It quotes a passage about the position of the Sämkhya believers of the philosophy of Pańcādhikaraņa.

NAME In the absence of any specific detail about Pañcādhikaraņa, we cannot say anything about him, his background, the times to which he belonged, and his writings. The fact that the Samkhya tradition, recorded by the Yuktidlpika, is confirmed by three independent sources leaves no doubt about the historicity of Pancādhikaranas. The Naresvaraparīksā mentions the name as Pañcangadhikaraņa. P. Chakravarti has no doubt about his being Pancādhikarana.15 The name Pañcadhikarana sounds a little queer. But, that is no

12. U.V: Shastri, Samkhyadarsana ka Itihāsa, pp. 632-3, lists these passages, also A.P. Mishra, Sāmkhyadarsana kl Aitihāsika Paramparā, p. 180; I. Yuktidlpika, p. 108, line 4; II. p. 108, lines 7-8; III. p. 108, line's 13-15; IV. p. 108, lines 15, 17; V .. p. 114, lines 1-3; VI. p. 132., lines 28- 29; VII. p. 114, lines 10=16; VIII. p. 147, lines 22-4; p. 148, lines 1-2; G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya, Encyclopediq of Indian Philosophies, Vol. IV -Såmkhya, p. 130 analyse only six of the passages. 13. atrāpi cetanādhātorāgatim bahudhaviduh 1 retuh soņitajam prahureke'nye maturahrtat, - -I. 94-7. Commentary - retah śonitajamiti pañcādhikaranānām paksah ! See P Chakravarti, Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 294- 5; also pp. 133, fn.6. -14. Kashmere Series of Texts and Studies, p. 19. nanvarthahitākāra- viseşasamvedanātmano'rthaviseşuyavasthāpakatvam, ato naişa doşah iti pañcangādhikaranāh I yadāha - 'tadbhogyapratibimbasya grāhaņam bhoga atmani' iti, see P. Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 133, fn.5. 15. III.53 (Anantasayana Sanskrit Granthavali), p. 68. Infra, fn.24, U V. Shastri, op. cit., p. 633.

158 Retrieving Samkhya History

reason for dismissing it as fictitious. We have historical references to names still more queer. The suspicion is no doubt increased by the reading Pancangadhikarana recorded in the Naresvarapariksa. Whether Pancadhikarana was the original name or it was given to the person later on account of some speciality of his cannot be decided. U.V.Shastri" suggests that, as in the case of Pancasikha, the name Pancadhikarana was also appended later for some special reason. Adhikarana signifies office and ancient texts and epigraphs refer to adhikaranas of a judicial or administrative nature. As panca prefixed to adhikarana did not carry much sense to the author of the Naresvarapariksa who may have replaced parca with pañcānga. Adhikarana has many other meanings, namely, relation, reference, connection, a receptacle, subject, substratum; location, place; and topic, subject or complete argument. As we have seen subsequently, Pancadhikarana had special views about the nature, number and function of karanas (organs), One wonders if this was, in some way, the reason for giving him this name.

AN EARLY SAMKHYA PHILOSOPHER

There are some indications of Pancadhikarana being early Samkhya philosopher. The Yuktidipika1 at one place says that according to Patañjali, Pañcādhikaraņa and Varșagana mahat originates out of pradhana. If the order of enumeration is any indication of the chronological position, Pancadhikaraņa has to be placed later than Patañjali but earlier than Varsagana. But, possibly the author of the commentary did not mean a chronological sequence in the names; He arranged them according to the importance. In any case, Pancadhikarana is to be regarded an early Samkhya philosopher like Patañjali and Vārșagaņa.M The Yuktidtpika quotes the Samkhyavrddhas as arguing that the sense-organs are the products of ahamkara and criticising the

16. Op.cit 17. Op. cit., p. 631 18. Passage no.1-patarjali-pañeadhikarang-varasaganandm pradhanat mahanutpadyata iti l

Early Samkhya Acaryas 159

view that the sense-organs are material.1 Now, according to the Yuktidipika itself, Pancadhikarana formulated the view that the sense-organs are material. The criticism of this view by the elder Samkhya philosophers10 implies that Pancadhikarana was earlier than these philosophers, or in any case, was their contemporary, preferably a senior one. The term Samkhyavrddhas refers to Samkhya philosophers who belonged to earlier stages in the history of the Samkhya philosophy. The designation Adya-Samkhya or Maulikya-Samkhya refers to the earlier form of Samkhya as distinguished from its later exposition, which found its classical form in the Samkhyakarika. We can, hence, place Pancadhikaraņa in the post-Pancasikha period, which witnessed a rich growth and wide variety of principles. He most likely belonged to an early phase in this period, before any significant attempt at systematisation and standardisation was made.

PANCĀDHIKARANA AS A TĀNTRIKA

The Yuktidipika at one place refers to Pancadhikarana as a täntrika21 U.V. Shastri" recognised the possibility of the reference indicating the time to which Pancadhikarana belonged, but did not work out its implications. Tantrika here does not refer to the popular usage or the term signifying one proficient in rites and cult of Tantricism. Of all the commentaries on the Samkhyakarika the

19. See mfra, chapter 17. 20 wam hi samkhyaurddha ahuh - ahamkarikanindriyani artham sadhayitumarhanti nanyatha \ tatha hi karakam kärakatvadeva prapyakāri bhavati i bhautikani cendriyani katham prapyakārini daravartini vişaye bhuveyuh, ahamkarikanam tu teşam uyapakatvat .. bhautikatue hi yatparimanam karanam tatprarimanam grahyam

II. p. 49. xrhntyat 1-p. 123. The quotation oceurs also in Nydyamanjari, Vol

21 The two points are: if sense-organs are material, they cannot perceive an objeet lying at a distance, and they can receive only such objects as are equal to them in magnitude; but actually they can receive objects which are bigger or smaller. 22. Passage no. 6 - karanam pancadhikaranaprabhrtayah dasavidhamiti tantrikan

160 Retrieving Samkhya History

Yuktidtpika attaches much significance to the concept of tantra, explaining -its technical meaning and demonstrating that its characteristic features and rules (yukti) are applicable to the Sāntkhyakārikā. Tantra means a treatise or a systematicexposition. Täntrayükti refers to the rules governing the exposition of a system or the presentation of a writing. The very title of the commentary Yuktidlpika indicates its primary objective to highlight the application of tantrayuktis to the original Samkhyakarika.23 The earlier Samkhya texts were often designated as tantras. The Samkhyakarika uses the term tantra for the exposition of the principles by Pancasikha.24 The additional verse of the Sāmkhyakarika; as recorded by Māthara, uses the term tantra for the 'eatlier .presentation of Samkhya views, of which the Samkhyakarika claims to be a reflection as it were in a'mirror.25The Jain canonical texts mention sattitamtăm ás one of the early expositions of Sarhkhya principles.26 The Yuktidipika in referring to the earlier treatises on Sarhkhya composed by Vindhyavasin and other treatises on Samkhya composed by Vindhyavāsin and other teachers, uses the expression tanträntara .? 7 It seems that the term tantra was often used as a technical term for the early treatises on Samkhya. Tantrika would, thus, refer to the author of an early, Samkhya treatise. The application of the term to Pancādhikaraņa suggests that, according to the author of the Yuktidipika, Pancadhikarana was an early Samkhya philosopher, who had composed a treatise designated as a tantra.

WORK OF PANCĀDHIKARANA There is no mention of the exact title of the treatise composed by Pancādhikárana. The ancient sources simply refer to the name of Pañcadhikarana. The passages in the Yuktidīpika and other sources

23 Op. cit., pp. 633-4. 24. 'Yuktidipikā, p. 3, lines 16-17. 25. tena ca bahudha krtar tantram 1 26. tantrasya ca brhanmürterdarpanasankrāntamiva bimbam I 27. Kalpasutra and Anuyogadvarsūtra, See U.V. Shastri, op. cit., pp. 96-7.

Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas 161

'recording the views of Pañcdhikarana do not seem to quote his actual words in most of the cases, Some passages clearly mention his views. very briefly, without the least suggestion that they are quotations from him. Passage nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 are of this category. The reference in Padmapada's commentary on the Prapañcasāra- tantra is of a similar nature. A comparison of passage nos. 3 and 5 shows that, though they refer to the views of Pancadhikarana, they are not in the form of his actual words; they represent his views, but the formulation is by the author of the Yuktidipikd. Passage no. 3 ends with the expression iti pancadhikaranah, which may suggest that the, preceding sentence is reproduced from the treatise of Pancādhikarana. Passage no. 5 is introduced by the expression yah pañcadhikaranapaksah and ends with iti. The two passages communicate the same view and have many common words. But, they are not identical. There are major difference's in expression and the order of points made in them. Evidently, both cannot be quotations from Pancadhikarana's treatise. If one of the two is to be treated as taken from the original text, the preference should be for passage no. 3. The other passage purports to present the stand of Pancadhikaraņa but not in his actual words. Passage nos. 7 and 8,are of a slightly different nature. Both are introduced by the expression pancadhikaranasya tāvat. The expression iti does not occur at the end of passage no. 7, but we find yatha jñanamevam dharmādayo'pi iti. That passage no. 7 records the views of Pancadhikarana is confirmed by Padmapada, who very briefly refers to the view by the expression retah-sonitajam parallel to sukrasonitam in passage no. 7. As in the case of the six passages discussed above, these two may also be treated as presenting the views of Pancadhikarana, but the formulation was made by the author ofthe Yuktidtpika, without necessarily borrowing sentences from the original. In passage no. 8 there are two verses introduced respectively by the expressions aha ca and atra tu tattvaih sahotpattyaviseşāt samsiddhikamabhedenāha. These,verses appear to have been borrowed from the original text of Pañcādhikaraņa in support of the presentation of his views in prose by the author of the commentary.

162 Retrieving Sarkhya History The passage occurring in the Nareśvarapariksa has two parts. The first mentions the views of Pancādhikarana as ato naiva dosah iti pañcadhikaranah. Immediately after this we have the sentence yadaha- 'tadbhogya-pratibimbasya grahanam bhoga tmani' iti. It is clear that whereas the first-part summarises the stand of Pañcadhikarana in the words of the author of the Naresvarapariksa, the second reproduces the actual words of Pancādhikaraņa. In Helarāja's commentary on the Vākyapadiya we have a reférence to the views of some philosophers followed by the sentence 'krtaparinisthita ... firobhavanti' with iti pancadhikarana- darsanasthānam sāmkhyanamabhyupagamah suffixed toit. Clearly the sentence'is intended to be an actual quotation from a work ofthe Pañcādhikarana school. To summarise,, we can, be sure about the actual words of Pancadhikarana only in the case of two, verses quoted.in the Yuktidipikā (passage no. 8), a sentence in the Naresvarapariksā, and another in Helaraja's commentary on the Vakyapadiya. There is a possibility that passage no. 3 also reproduces Pancādhikarana's words. Passage nos. 5, 7 and 8 represent Pañcadhikarana's views faithfully, but the presentation has been done by the author of the Yuktidipika, who possibly borrowed freely words and expressions frorh the original. The remaining passage nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6 and the commentary of Padmapāda mention Pancādhikarana's views very briefly.

HIS PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS These passages and surviving quotations indicate some important features of the philosophical system expounded by Pancādhikaraņa. First, according to Pancadhikarana, mahat is produced from pradhand: This was the view of Patanjali and Varsaganya alsd. The Yaktidipika says that some philosophers hold that from pradhana is produced another tattva whose form cannot be described and'that mahat is produced from this tattva. Pancadhikarana formulated his view in opposition to this (passage'no. 1), Second, accórding to Pañcădhikarana the number of karanas or organs is ten (passsage

Early Samkhya Ācaryas 163

no. 6). This is in violent contrast to the Samkhyakarika, which mentions thirteen organs, ten external and-three internal. The Yuktidipika records the difference of opinion among Samkhya philosophers on this point, Varsaganya and. Vindhyavāsin regard the number to be eleven. Patañjali considers only twelve organs. The available passages do not enumerate the ten organs recognised by Pañcadhikarana. Possibly'he considered only the ten external organs, five sensory organs and five motor organs. In passage no. 5 the words antahkarane bahye ca standing for karanam in passage no. 3 indicate that Pancadhikarana divided the Raranas into two- internal and external. But, here again there is no specification of the karanas of thé two types. Pañcādhikarana has formulated a very distinctive view about the sense-organs (indriyani). He regards them"to be material products (bhautikani).28 This is opposed to the general Samkhya view that the sense-organs are the modification of ahamkara, thus -. differentiating the organs from their physiological 'sites in the material parts of the body. The'cryptic reference to the view of Pañcadhikarana does not specify the grounds for propounding the view and other details of its implications. The Yuktidipika records the arguments against Pancadhikarana's view as advanced by other Samkhya philosophers. The argument is based on the position that the organs function only when they come into contact with the object of perception (prapyakart). The physical organ being material cannot bring about the perception of an object lying at a distance. The sense-organs as material substance can perceive objects which are equal to them in magnitude. That they are pervasive as products of ahamkara accounts for their perceiving all objects, whether big ór small, - Pañcādhikaraņa makes a significant departure from the views of other Samkhya philosophers about the functioning of the organs. According to him, the kdranas by nature are without any impression left on them (nirlikhitasvarupa). They are like an empty village or a dry river (sanyagramanadīkalpa). The natural (prākrta) and

28. • P. 4, lines 7-8.

164 Retrieving Samkhya History acquired (vaikrta) knowledges are received from an' external stimulus, which is an influx from the pradhana (prakrti) (passage no. 3):29'In passage no. 5 the intérnal and external karanas are mentioned as being like the dried river and then an additional detail is added sāttvika-sthityatmakrtamapratyayasyavasthānam.8 Another passage (no. 4)is also in connection with the functioning of the karanas.31 According to Varsaganya, when the karanas function abnormally, the influx comes into them from thepradhāna, but, in the ordinary course, they act from within. As opposed to this, Patañjali regards them as always acting from within, whereas Pancadhikarana holds that they always act on the basis of influx coming from outside. Pañcādhikarana's views on the theory of knowledge are recorded in greater dețails (passage no. 7). According to him, jñāna (knowledge) is of two kinds: prakrta (natural) and vaikrta (acquired). The prāktta kind iş classified into three: tattvasamakāla, sāmsiddhika and abhisyandika. Tattvasamakala, is that kind of knowledge which appears in the tattva (èvolute of the prakrti) mahat at the very moment of its manifestation from the prakrti.32 Samsiddhika and abhisyandika are two kinds of knowledge of a body whose objects and organs have been produced. Sāmsiddhika (inńate) knowledge appears along with the composite presence of objects and organs. This is illustrated by the knowledge which the great sage (Kapila) had. His knowledge was innate. As against this, in the case ofabhisyandika (caused) knowledge the objects and the organs are innate, but it appears on account of another cause or stimulus

29. Passage no. 2 - bhautikanidriyāniti pancādhikaraņamatam 1 30. tatha karanam nirlikhita-svarūpam sanyagrāmanadikalpam, prakrtavaikrtikani tu jnanani prerakangasangrhitāni pradhānâdagacchanti ceti pancādhikaranah 1 31 .- anayoscabhidhānād yah pancadhikaraņapakşah - prākrta- vaikrtanam jnananam. pradhānavat (pradhanat) 'suşkanadısthāniyāntahkaraņe bāhye ca prerakajnānāmsakakrta upanipatah tathā ca satvikasthityatmakrtamapratyayasya- vasthānamiti tat pratikşipațam bhavati 1 32. karaņānam ... svabhdvātivrttih ... sarvā parata iti pancadhikaranah t

Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas 165

(karanāntara). The vaikrta (acquired) knowledge is of two.kinds: sva-vaikrta (self-acquired) and para-vaikrta.(acquired from other. sources). The sva-vaikrta knowledge is called taraka or acquired by self-reasoning. Taraka is the first of the eight siddhis, recognised in Sämkhya. The remaining seven siddhis fall under the para- vaikrta kind of knowledge, which, here, is described as acquired by the other siddhis (siddhyantarani). A verse is quoted which enumerates three kinds of knowledge. Vaivarta is coeval with tattva (tattvasamam). Abhişyandika is the second. Vaikrta is the third and is called satkausika (caused by physical body possessing six sheaths). Not differentiating samsiddhika, on account of the similarity resulting from its emergence along with the tattvas, a verse is quoted to the following effect: Vaikrta is of two kinds. Of these, sva-vaikrta is taraka. Para-vaikrta is of seven types, designated as sattvdrama, etc. As is the case with jñana so is the case with dharma, etc.33 Helaraja mentions the Samkhya views associated with the philosophy of Pancadhikarana in connection with the standpoint of some that those belonging to the past time (atttadhva) appear in later times on the revolving of the cycle (pardvartta) of the world. According to 'this, the dispositions (bhava), which after being completely accomplished (krtaparinisthita), have entered the folds of the prakrti (pradhanaprasevantargatd) reveal themselves (uddarsayantyātmānam) in còurse oftime (yathākālam), and again at the time of the dissolution (pralaya) they disappear in that itself (tattraiva tirobhavanti).34

33. It means that the moment the evolute of prakrti is manifested, its knowledge emanates in it simultaneously. This is a significant point. It regards an object and its knowledge as correlated. It discards the view that an object exists, but its knowledge may be absent; both exist together; one cannot exist without the other. 34. pañcádhikaranasya tđvat - dvividham jnđnam - prakrtikam vaikrtikam ca l prakrtikam trividham-tattvasamakālam samsiddhi- kamabhişyandikam ca Il tatra tattvasamakālam - samhataśca mahdmstattvatmand mahati pratyayo bhavati I utpannakārya- karanasya tu sāmsiddhikamabhişyandikam ca bhavati It

166 Retrieving Samkhya History

Another significant principle expounded by Pancadhikarana is that of vaivarta-sarira (passage no. 7). It is a subtle medium or intermediate body which serves as the vehicle for the migration of purusa from one embodiment to another. It seems that Pancadhikarana viewed it as the distinguishing mark of the individual personality of the purusas. Pancādhikarana does not explain the nature of this vaivarta-sarira. It cannot be equated with the organs (karanas), which are mentioned separately and as distinet from it. Possibly he took it to be constituted of mahat (buddhi), ahamkara, manas and the tanmatras (subtle elements). According to Pancadhikarana, at the time of the sexual intercourse between the parents the vaivarta sarira, integrated with the organs (karanavista), enters into the semen and blood. After the entry it gradually develops as ovum and other stages. With the development of the parts and becoming sensitive it comes out of the womb of the mother. On account of the merit and demerit (dharma- dharma) it has performed during the period of the enjoyment (upabhoga) of six siddhis (satsiddhi) it remains in the world. It retains its existence uptil the body perishes as a result of the exhaustion of merit and demerit. If the organs (karanas) (during the embodiment) have been sanctified through virtuous deeds (dharmasamskrtam), the subtle medium (sūksma-sarlra) migrates to heaven (dyudesa). If the organs retain impressions of demerits, the subtle medium goes to hell (yatana-sthana) or the world of animals (tiryag-yoni). The admixture of merits and demerits leads to the world of human beings. Thus, the sūksma-sarira serves as

samsiddhikam yat samhatavythasamakalam nişpadyate, yatha paramarşerjnanam | abhişyandikam ca samsiddhakāryakaraņasya haranäntarenotpadyate 1 vaikrtam tu duividham - svavaikrtam paravaikrtanca I svavaikrtam tarakam, paravaikrtam siddhyantarani i aha ca- tattuasamam vaivarttam tatrabhişyandikam syat 11 vaikrtamatastrtiyam şatkausikametadakhyatam I atra tu tattuaih sahotpattyavisesat samsiddhikamabhedenah - vaikrtamapi ca dvividham svavaikrtam tatra tarakam bhavati | syät saptavidham paravaikrtam sattvarāmādi nirdistam iti lyatha jñānamevam dharmādayo'pi iti 11

Early Samkhya Ācāryas 167

the vechicle of purusa in his migration (ativahika) and has the capacity ofholding and seizing (dharanaprapana) the sense-organs (indriyas). It is always enveloped (parivestyate) by the physical body (vahyenapayina) at the time of the birth and is forsaken (parityajyate) by the same at the time of the death.35 The Naresvararpaiksa records the view of Pancadhikarana about bhoga (enjoyment). Bhoga is the experiencing of the desirable and undesirable modifications of buddhi received through sense- organs. According to Panca(nga)dhirakana, on account of the special awareness of improper objects of senses (arthahitakaravisesa- samvedanat) there is a special arrangement for the perceived objects (arthavisesavyavasthapakatvam) of soul (atmanah). This is supported by a quotation which says that bhoga is the receiving in the atman of the reflection of the object of experience (tadbhogyapratibimbasya grahanam bhoga atmani).

HIS FOLLOWERS

There is evidence to show that the philosophical system expounded by Pancadhikarana did not die out with him. His views were retained by his followers, who represented a separate school of thought. Though the Yuktidipika, in all the passages under consideration, reproduces the views of Pancadhikarana himself, the Naresvarapariksa refers to the view as that of Panca(nga)- dhikaranas (pancangsidhikaranah). Padmapāda also mentions the view as the viewpoint of the Pancadhikaranas (pañcādhikaraņānām paksah). Helārāja in his commentary refers to the stand of the followers of Samkhya who follow the philosophical system of Pancādhikarana. From these references it is clear that the philosophical system of Pancadhikarana was upheld by his followers in later times. We cannot be sure about the times up to which they had a real

35. kecittu manyante - atltädhvavarttino'pi punah punah kalāntare jagata paravarttesudbhavanti | 'krtaparinisthita hi bhavah pradhanaprasevakāntargata yathākalamuddarsayantyātmanam, punah pralaye tatraiva tirobhavanti' iti pañcadhikaranadaršana- sthanām samkhyanä(maya) mabhyupagamah Il

168 Retrieving Samkhya History

existence. The views of Pancadhikarana were available to the author of the Yuktidipika commentary. In later times, though they were not accessible in original, there were philosophers who subscribed to them.

CONCLUSION The, reasons for the work and system of Pancadhikarana not surviving in a substantial manner are not difficult to imagine. The standardisation of.the.Samkhya system attempted from time to time, culminating in the most effective and systematic one presented by Isvarakrana, had the natural effect of expelling and suppressing the memories of earlier expositions. Pancadhikarana did not belong to the stream of Sämkhya system which was, continued by Îśvarakrsna. He was radically opposed to this stream on a number of important issues and could not beaccomodated in the subsequent flow of the system. Pancadhikarana had his own views about the evolutes of pradhana (prakrti), number and functioning of the ķaranas, nature of indriyas, migration of vaivarta-sarira from one embodiment to another, and the theory ofknowledge. The Samkhya lineage of Pancasikha ignored him, which relegated him and his system to the realm of obscurity.

DATE OF PAÑCĀDHIKARAŅA G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya, though admitting that 'it is difficult to ascertain even rough approximations' .of the dates of Pañcādhikaraņa, Paurika and Patānjali, suggest the time-bracket of AD:100-300.3& In place of the phase of Classical Samkhya, they

36. pañcādhikaranasya tāvat - vaivarttar sariram mātapitr- 'samsargakāle karaņāviştam sukrasonitamanupravisatil tadanupravesācca kalalādibhavena vivardhate 11 uyüdhavayavar tüpalabdhapratyayam mâturudarānnihsrtya yau dharmādharmau şațsiddhyupabhogakāle krtau tadvasadavatișthate ! yavattątkşayāt sarlrapātastastavat 11 yadi dharmosamskrtam karanam tato dyu desar sūkşmasarireņa prāpyate, tadviparyāttu yātnāsthanam tiryagyonim va, misribhāvena mānuşyam I .evamātivāhikam sakşmasartramindriyānām dhāraņaprā- panasamartham nityam bāhyendpāyina pariveştyate parityajyate ca 11

Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas 169

speak of the phase of Sämkhya as a technical philosophical system. They divide it into two sub-phases, pre-Kārik. Samkhya and Karika Samkhya. As contrasted with the later sub-phase, represented by the followers of Värsaganya, including Vindhyavāsin and Isvarakrsna, they suggest the date AD 100-300 for the earlier sub-phase accomodating two groups:(a) Paurika, Pañcadhikaraņa, Patañjali and other early philosophical dcāryas and (b) Vārșagaņya. This is based on the dates proposed for Vindhyavasin and Isvarakrsna and the evidence of the Yuktidipika indicating 'a rich fabric of internal debate involving such teachers as Paurika, Pañcādhikaraņa, Patañjali, Vārsaganya, and various schools such as the "followers of Varsaganya."'.37 There is, however, no evidence for calculating the time-gap separating the older Samkhya teachers from the Samkhyakarika and the Yuktidipikd and for determining the relative chronology of the teachers. The suggestion of an internal debate among these teachers creates an impression about their contemporaneity. It is not unlikely that the teachers belonged to different dates and - expounded their views without any criticism of another view. The Yuktidīpikā mentions Paurika, Pañcādhikaraņa and Patañjali as belonging to the gap between Pañcasikha and Isvarakrsna. In this list there are eleven names, but they cannot be taken to represent a chronological sequence in the Yuktidīpikā. Pañcādhikarana is designated as a tāntrika,38 which possibly indicates that he belonged to an early period in the history of Sämkhya, when the system or a text expounding it was called a tantra. Again, as we have pointed out,39 according to Yuktidtpikā, the Samkhyaurddhas criticise the theory that the sense-organs are material,40 which view the Yuktidipika itself attributes to Pañcādhikaraņa.41 37. Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, ed. by K. Potter, Vol. IV - Samkhya, pp. 9-13. 38. P. 132, see șupra under Pañceādhikaraņa as a Tantrika'. 39 See supra under 'An early,Samkhya Philosophy'. 40. P. 123. 41. P. 108.

170 Retrieving Samkhya History Pancadhikarana, thus, would appear to be among the early Samkhyuaurddhas. He was possibly close to the times of Pancasikha. The time-bracket suggested by Larson and Bhattacharya errs on the side of being late. We would place him around 500-450 BC.42

Ulūka ULUKA AS A SAMKHYA TEACHER The name of Uluka as a Samkhya teacher is testified by two commentaries on the Samkhyakarika."Paramartha's commentary, which is available in Chinese translation, and the Matharaurtti include his name in the list of Samkhya teachers who form the teacher-pupil tradition after Pancasikha and before Isvarakrsņa. The Yuktidipika and the Jayamangala do not mention his name. Śrutadevasuri, in his commentary on the Yasastilakacampū,4 paraphrases Samkhya as Ulukadarsana, which shows the importance attached to be contributions of Uluka to the development of Samkhya as a philosophical system. In the Jain text Tattvartharājavartika46 the akriyavadins are said to comprise of eighty-four different schools. The list of teachers named here includes Uluka along with many others who were exponents of Sāmkhya. The epic-Puranic tradition remembers Uluka as an ancient sage. In the Mahabharata," Amba, the daughter of the King of Kasi, feeling wronged by Bhisma, resorts to severe penance and 42. See supra under 'Paurika' for Paurika and infra chapter 14 for Patañjali 43. Karika, 71. 44. The Yuktidipikd includes Muka in its list. The editor expresses doubt about the reading. Muka is not evidenced as a Samkhya teacher by any other source 45. Vol. IIL. p. 111. 46. 1,5, p. 51, U.V. Shastri, Samkhyadarsana ka Itihāsa, p. 609 refers to the Tattuarthaslokaudrttika (chapter VIII, p. 474) as classifying 363 systems (vddas) into four, of which the second akriydudda includes 180. Uloka and Kapila are mentioned in this list separately. 47. Udyoga (v). 186.26.

Early Samkhya Ācaryas 171

then visits important pilgrimage centres in the Vatsa country. The holy hermitage of Uluka is included in this list. We do not have details about the achievements of Uluka for which he received respect. The Vayu Purana4s mentions Ulaka, along with Aksapāda, Kanada and Vatsa, as yogatman, mahätman, pure and with unsoiled mind. All these are well-known philosophers. In the early phase of its history Samkhya was a composite system with Yoga, hence this reference does not go against the Samkhya connections of Ulūka.

HIS PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS There is no Samkhya text written by Uluka, or do we have quotations referring to his views. But the available references provide some glimpse of his principles. Śrutadevasuri describes the philosophical system of Ulūka, identified with Samkhya, as having satkarya as its second name. The Samkhya theory of causation believes in the effect being existent in the cause. We do not know when and how it came to require its full exposition. The possibility of the Samkhya principle of causation, even in a rudimentary form, being expounded by Ulūka cannot be denied. There are various shades of views covered by the name akriyavāda, depending on the emphasis envisaged by the meaning assigned to akriya or non-action, it may be interpreted as advocating a fatalist view or an apathy to moral actions. The Jain sources do not go into its details, with the result that we are left into a state of uncertainty about the principle of akriya laid down by Ulūka. According to the Rasavaisesikasutra followers of Uluka regard sense-organs as elemental products. This is in opposition to the followers of Varsaganya who consider them to be the products of ahamkara. Such a difference among the followers of Uluka and

48. (A.S.S.) p. 169, verses 2-4 49. ahamkārikaniti varsaganyah(nah) aulakyāh punar bhautikani I- III. 2, p. 124.

172 Retrieving Samkhya History Vārșaganya. about the sense-organs being evolutes of the mahābhūtas or ahamkāra is attributed by Uddyotkara50 to the followers of Yoga and Samkhya respectively. Combining the testimonies of the Rasavaiseşikasūtra and Uddyotakara we find that Ulüka, on this point, was,closer to the.Yoga as compared with Samkhya. But this difference of opinion is not the distinguishing feature of Yoga and Samkhya. Possibly the difference characterised two schools of Samkhya. The testimony of Rasavaisesikasutra is significant in showing that in the Samkhya circles the followers of Ulūka maintained their separate identity on account of their distinctive views on'certain important issues.

HIS DATE 11 H.S. Joshi51 places Uluka around 675 Bc. His calculation is based on the fact that in the Chinese translation of Paramartha's commentary on the Samkhyakarika Uluka is named after Garga, who, according to Joshi, is to be assigned the date c. 825 BC.52 But, there is a major flaw in Joshi's 'argument Though he accepts the testimony of Paramartha for taking Garga to have been a predecessor of Ulūka, he rejects the principal statement of Paramārtha making Pancasikha a predecessor of Garga, Ulūka and others. The date c. 825 BC, proposéd for Garga by'Joshi, cannot be accepted. Joshi arrives at this date on the basis of two references to the views of Gargya by Yāska (700 Bc ačcording to Joshi). But, the views of Gargya, quoted by Yaksa, relate to grammar and poetics. There is no'grotnd for identifying this Gargya with Garga, the Samkhya teacher.' Both the Malharaurtti and Paramartha place Ulūka in the chronological gap between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna. The lists of Samkhya teachers for this gap; as given by the four commentaries dıt

50. On Nyayasatra, I.1.29-bhautikānindriyantti yogānām, abhautikāniti sāmkhyānām. 51. Sāmkhyayogadarsana kå Jtrņoddhāra, p. 63. 52. Ibid., pp. 61-2.

Early Sāmkhya Ācāryas 173

on the Samkhyakarika, are so different in names and numbers that they evidently do not record a set order of remuneration, nor can they be interpreted as showing a chronological sequence. Moreover, we cannot determine the period to be assigned to each one name. The Matharavrtti names Bhargava before Ulūka. It is only Paramārtha who refers to the transmission of the knowledge of Samkhya from one to the next teacher. He says that Pancasikha gave it to Ho-kia and Ho-kia to Uluka. This will suggest that Uluka was in the second generation after Pañcasika, bringing him close to the time of Buddha. But, possibly Paramartha has woven the names into a chronological sequence of direct teacher-student relationship. In the present state of our knowledge we cannot be precise in placing Ulūka in the post-Pañcasikha phase of Sāmkhya. If, however, Ulūka is to be identified with the philosopher who formulated the Vaisesika philosophy, then he is to be placed earlier than Kanāda, who laid down the Vaisesika system in the form of sūtras.

9

New Beginnings by Jaigisavya and · Āvatya

Jaigişavya

SOURCES JAIGISAVYA was among the earliest. Samkhya philosophers and enjoyed a high respect in the Samkhya-Yoga circles. He is known from the Mahabharata,1 the Puranas (Kürmd,2Våyy3and Padma*), Istaragtta,5 Asvaghosa's Buddhacaria,6 Vyāsa's Yogabhāsya7 and Vtaspati's Tātparyattka, and Tattvapaisaradt:9: -

REPUTATION AS A SAMKHYA-YOGA TEACHER Thersferences show that Jaigisavaya enjoyed a high veneration. In

1. XII.318.59-62; XII.229.3-25; IX.50.6-56. 2 I.47.17-9; I.52.5 3. XXIII.131-2. 4. Padma Purāņa. 5. XI.128. 6. XII.67. 7. II.55; III.18. 8. III.2.42. 9. On Yogabhaşya, II.5; H.S. Joshi, Samkhyayogadarsana kā Jirnoddhrd, p. 57 mentions Vacaspati's Samkhyatattvakaumudt on Kārikđ 2 and Vijnanabhikşu's Samkhyapravacanabhāsya on V.32. But these do not refer to Jaigisavya.

176 Retrieving Samkhya History the Santiparva of the Mahabharata10 he is referred to as endowed with the highest knowledge (mahaprajña). In the Salyaparva11 account he is mentioned as the high-souled one (mahatma) and the great sage (mahamuni), and Devala addresses him as the venerable one (bhagavan). The Yogabhasya on the Yogasütra12 mentions Jaigisavya twice as the venerable one (bhagavatah and bhagavan). It refers to his having acquired the knowledge arising out of intuitional wisdom (vivekajam jñānam). Vācaspatimiśra, in his commentary Tattvavaisaradi,13 pays respect to Jaigīșavya, mentioning him as the great sage (parama-rsi) and adding that he expounded the view which was the stand of the author of the Yogasūtra. The Kurma Purana14 testifies to the high veneration enjoyed by him. He is mentioned as one of the incarnations of Mahadeva in the kali-age and is referred to by the appellation yogindra (foremost among yogins). Jaigīşavya was respected as an eminent Sāmkhya teacher. In țhe Śantiparva15 Gandharya Viśvāvasu gives a list of eminent authorities of Samkhya from whom, he learnt the principles of the system. The list includes.some mythical names along with certain highly reputed historical teachers. Jaigisavya js one of these historical figures. In the Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa Arāda expounds his principles, which evidently represent Samkhya philosophy, and adds that these principles were expounded also by Jajgisavya; Janaka and Vrddha-Parāsara.16 The Sämkhya connections of Jaigisavya are -clèarly pronounced in the Isvaragifa,17 which mentions Jaigisavya and Pancasikha as the pupils of, Kapila.,

10. XII.229.4. 11. II. 50.53-5. 12. III.18 13. On Yogabhaşya, II.55 - sütrakārabhimatam vasyatām parama-rși sammatāmāha - cittaikāgryāditi 14 I.52.5. 15. Mbh., XII.318.59-62. 16. XII.67. 17. XI.128.

New Beginnings by Jaigīşavya and Āvatya 177

According to P: Chakravartti,18 Jaigīsavya was 'a teacher of Yoga and not of pure Samkhya'. His connections with Yoga are prominently evidenced in the Kūrma Purāna. The epithet yogindra is used for him,19 and his hermitage is described as the abode of great yogins.20 Some references in the Mahabharata clearly imply that he was a yogin of great spiritual powers. At one place, when Devala approaches Jaigisavya, the latter is described as a true yogin, without anger and joy (akrudhyantam-ahrsyantam).21 In the Śalyaparva22 Devala is said to have taken to the ascetic ways impressed by the powers of the austerities ofJJaigisavya which were borne out of Yoga. The account of the dialogue between Avātya and Jaigişavya in the Yogabhasya23 prominently refers to Jaigisavya observing through his Yogic power the sufferings caused by birth in the ten cycles of creation. The surviving references to the philosophical principles of Jaigīsavya relate to topics, which are traditionally taken to belong to the Yoga system. Thus, he is said to have expounded- the principles of dharana, and to have laid down that sense-control (indriyajaya) is actually non-perception (apratipatti) which results from the concentration,of citta (cittaikagrya). References to his views are found in sources which belong to the Yoga system, namely the Yogabhāsya and the Tattvavaisaradl. Vācaspatimiśra pays him a high compliment by designating him as parama-rsi and observing that he upholds the view which is expounded by the author of the Yogasutra. A.P. Mishra24 argues that the. references' to Jaigisavya expounding on topics belonging to the Yoga system do not show that he was not connected with Sämkhya. According to him, though the

18. Op. cit., p. 127. 19. I.52.5. 20. I.47.17-19. 21. Mbh., XII.229.4. 22. Ibid., IX.50.53 23. On Yogasütra, III.18. 24. Sāmkhyadarsana ki Aitihāsika Paramparā, pp. 155-7.

178 Retrieving Samkhya History views attributed to Jaigīsavya are not avowed Sāmkhya principles, they emanated originally from known Samkhya views on certain importantissues. Thus, when in the Santiparva Jaigisavya preaches Devala to realise the permanent position of Brahma, distinct from prakjti, remaining unaffected by praise and blame alike, herefers to purusa untouched by the three gunas and the opposite feelings ofhate, joy and sorrow, etc. This is essentially a Samkhya principle. Mishra further refers to the dialogue between Avātya and Jaigīșavya as reported in the Yogabhasya. Here Jaigīsavya is represented as saying that the highest form of contentment, derived from the mastery over theprakrti, is nothing but pain, when compared to the' bliss of liberation. Thus, according to Mishra, Jaigisavya establishes that world and life are full of suffering. Mishra infers that Jaigisavya was the foremost teacher, who, visualising the truth of the basic principles of Samkhya, through his highest yogic powers, expounded them clearly. Mishra describes Jaigisavya as the foremost among principal Samkhya-Yoga teachers of very early times. Jaigīsavya belonged to a very early period in the history of Samkhya, when it was so intrinsically interwoven with Yoga that the two could not be. separated. This was the characteristic feature of the Samkhya system in that stage of its evolution and Jaigīsavya naturally reflected it. Another possibility is that among the many Samkhya schools there was one which emphasised the joint nature ofSamkhya and Yoga. Possibly'Jaigsavya was the foremost exponent of this school. His characteristic emphasis was possibly carried forward by his disciples Avatya and Devala among others:

Work-composition H.S. Joshi says that Jaigisavya wrote entitled the Dharanāsastra.25 P. Chakravartti26 also refers to him as the author of the Dharanāsastra. Both base this view on the testimony of 25. Op. cit., pp. 57-8. He describes the contents of this work. But neither the text is available nor is there any reference to its contents in any ancient text. 26. Op. cit., p. 128.

New Beginnings by Jaigīşavya and Āvātya 179

Vācaspatimiśra's commentary Tātparyațīkā on the Nyāyasūtra.27 Though the reference does prove that Jaigisavya wrote a treatise expounding his views on dhārana, we cannot be sure about its title. Dharanasastra is the subject of his work; it need not be the title of his work. This follows from the fact that Vacaspatimisra himself refers to Dhāraņāsāstra as expounded by-Jaigișavya and others. Clearly Dhāranāsastra signifies a subject or discipline and not the title of a book. All available reference to the views of Jaigisavya are in prose. Whether they are actual expressions from Jaigisavya's treatise of are presentations of his.views by the author or text quoting him cannot be determined. The probability is in favour of the second alternative; but, it has to be admitted that, in- doing so, the secondary sources have retained significant words and expressions used by Jaigīsavya. We cannot rule out the possibility that Jaigisavya employed verses also to formulate his views, but there is no undoubted evidence in support of it.28 In the Mahabharata29 the dialogue between Jaigisavya and Devala is in verses. This, however, does not mean that Jaigīsávya presented his views in verses. The use of verses was à compulsion on account of the form of the Mahabharata. These verses cannot be said to have formed a part of the treatise composed by Jaigisavya. Lakşmīdhara, in his Krtyakalpataru,30 reproduces these nineteen verses in the Mahabharata, but attributes them to Jaigīsavya, which would create the impression that both Laksmidhara and the compiler of the relevant section in the Mahabharata borrowed the verses in question from the original treatise of Jaigisavya. But, we know that, in some similar cases, Laksmidhara reproduces verses from the Mahabharata, but does not mention the Mahabharata as the source and attributes them to the celebrated personally referred

27. III.2.42; Dharandsāstram Jaigtşavyadiproktam. 28. H.S. Joshi, op. cit., p. 58 says that the Dharandsastra of Jaigisavya contained verses. But in the absence of any definite evidence, the view can be neither confirmed nor rejected. 29. Mbh., XII.22.5-25. 30. Mokşakāņda, pp. 228-9.

180 Retrieving Samkhya History

to in the account.31 The account of the Devala-Jaigisavya dialogue cannot be construed to prove that Jaigisavya formulated his ideas in his treatise by composing verses. It is to be noted that in a similar account of the dialogue between Jaigīsavya and his disciple Āvatya, as recorded by Vyasa in his commentary on the Yogasutra, the views are expressed in prose.

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWS

In the absence of actual quotations from the writings of Jaigisavya or detailed references to his views on important issues, we are not in a position to formulate the Samkhya system presented by him. The only reference, which can be taken to represent his view, is found in the Yogabhsasya.32 Here it is said that, according to Jaigisavya, sense-control consists in the non-perception of the objects, which stage is realised through the full concentration of the citttas.

In line with this is the reference, made by Vacaspatimisra, to Jaigīşavya having expounded the Dhāranasastra.33 We cannot hazard any guess about the actual opinion expressed by Jaigisavya on different topics connected with the subject of dharana. The account of the dialogue between Āvātya and Jaigisavya, as recorded by Vyasa in the Yogabhasya,34 represents Jaigisavya as

31. Journal of Ancient Indian History, Vol. XIII, pp. 57-64. 32. 11.55 - cittaikāgryādapratipattīreveti jaigtsavyah ! 33. Tātparyațikā on Nyāyasūtra, III.2.42. 34. On Yogasütra, III.18 - atredamākhyānam srūyate bhagavato jaigişauyasya samskārasākşātkaraņād dasasu mahasargesu janmapariņāmakramamanupasyato vivekajam jnānam prādura- bhavat I atho bhagavan avatyastamudharasthamuvāca - dasasu mahasargesu bhavyatvadanabhibhūtabuddhisatvena naraka- tiryaggarbham sambhavaduhkham sampasyatā devamamanuşyesu punah punarutpadyamanana sukhadunkhayoh kimadhikamu palabdhamiti? bhagavantamāvatyam jaigīşavya uvaca - dasau ... yat kincidanubhutam tat sarvam duhkameva pratyavaimi I bhagavanāvatya uvāca - yadidamayusmatah pradhanavasi- tvamanuktamam ca santoşasukham kimidamapi duhkhapakse niksiptamiti? bhagavān jaigisauya uvāca - visayasukhāpekşayai-

New Beginnings by Jaigişavya and Avātya 181

enunciating the principle of birth in the world being essentially suffering. He is said to have observed, in the ten cycles of creation, pain arising from hell and birth for both gods and human beings. According to him, even the mastery over the prakrti, which is the highest form of contentment, is to be placed in the category of pain. The joy of contentment (santosa-sukha) is invaluable only as compared to the pleasures of sensation. When it is compared to the bliss of liberation, it is also nothing but pain. This is the nature of buddhi. It comprises of three gunas. The form of suffering is the thread of craving (trsna). By the cessation of the suffering caused by craving follows joy, incessant and suitable in all respects, which is termed as happiness (sukha). It is to be noted that the reality of suffering is the starting point of Samkhya.$5 It is emphasised by Isvarakrsna in his introductory verses.36 This was, possibly, an important feature of Samkhya thought even in its early formulations. In the Salyaparva chapter Devala approaches Jaigīșavya to enquire from him the path for emancipation (moksadharma) and is taught the method of Yoga.37 In another chapter in the Santiparva the narrative of Devala and Jaigisavya occurs in connection with people who follow the path for emancipation (moksadharma) and achieve the position of Brahman.38 In this narrative there is nothing by way of metaphysics. What Jaigisavya preaches belongs to the domain of ethics. Even if another person does him wrong, one should always do him well and always think well ofhim. One should refrain from hoping and not worry about the past; he should act in the present. Control the senses, conquer anger, strive for acquiring knowledge, and do not harm anybody by thought, speech or action.

vedamanuttamam santeşasukhamuktam kaivalyāpekșaya duhkhameva buddhisattvasyāyam dharmastrigunah trīgunaśca pratyayo heyapakşe nyasta iti duhkhasvarūpastrșnātantustrsnā- duhkhasantānāpagamāttu prasannamabādham sarvanukūlam sukhamidamuktamiti 11 35 Samkhyakarika, kārika 1 36 A.P. Mishra, op. cit., p. 155. 37 IX.50.53-7. 38 XII.229.2-5.

182 Retrieving Samkhya History If people blame me or praise me, I do not become small or great by that. One should think that all such people actually describe themselves only. Those, who lead their life in this manner, add to their happiness. In this way one realises Brahma, who is sublime and is definitely distinct from prakrti. The passage, thus, establishes the primacy of prurusa, as distinct from prakrti. It advocates the ethical norms of conduct, similar to the one laid down in the Gltā, as characteristic of a man of steadfast knowledge (sthitaprajna). In the Buddhacarita3 Arada remarks that Jaigīsavya also upheld the principles which he has expounded. From this it can be inferred that there was a general similarity in the exposition of Samkhya by Jaigīsavya and Arāda. We can use the account of Samkhya available in the Buddhacarita for Jaigisavya also, but only in the broadest sense. We do not know the details of the actual presentation made by Jaigisavya and the manner in which he differed from Arada. Thus, the principal features of the philosophical system of Jaigisavya, which are projected by the cryptic and indirect references in later texts, are those which are to be expected in the early stages of the history of Samkhya. The emphasis on the basic reality of the concept of suffering, the primacy of purusa as distinet from prakrti, the joint presentation of Samkhya and Yoga, and the underlining of the unruffled ethical conduct as moksadharma are some points in his presentation which can be easily identified.

DATE H. S. Joshi places Jaigisavya around 525 ac. This is deduced from Jaigisavya being taken to be a disciple of Pancasikha, whose date, as suggested by Joshi, was around 550 Bc. Joshi calculates these dates on the basis of a statement in the Kathasaritsagara mentioning Vyādi, a disciple of Varșa (or Varșaganya) as a contemporary of Nanda. He takes the date of Vyadi to be c. 375-350 and that of

39. XII.67 40. Op. cit., p. 58.

New Beginnings by Jaigisauya and Avatya 183

Varsaganya to be c. 400 Bc. He places Pancasikha long before Varsaganya, on the ground that the latter brought out a revised account of Sasthitantra, which was originally expounded by Pancasikha. This view is based on a late tradition making Vyadi a contemporary of Nanda king and describing him as a disciple of Varsa, who is identified with Varsaganya. Even if all this is accepted, there is no valid argument for postulating a gap of only 150 years between Pancasikha and Varşagaņya. There are other indications also which help us determine the date of Jaigişavya. According to the Kūrma-Purāņa, Jaigīsavya was a contemporary of Pancasikha and not his disciple, both being the disciples of Kapila. We also know that his example was emulated by Devala. There is an account of a dialogue between Devala and Jaigisavya, in which Jaigisavya preaches ethical ideas to Devala. Jaigisavya is reported to have answered the philosophical queries of his disciple Avatya. One tradition, as recorded in the Kūrma Purāņa, represents Samkhya, Manohara, Kausika, Krşna, Sumanas and Vedavada as the chief disciples of Jaigisavya. Thus, we have a long list of the disciples of Jaigisavya. From other sources we find people having names of Samkhya, Kausika and Krsna; but we cannot be sure if they were also Samkhya philosophers, as required by the context of the reference. Ofthese, no doubt, Krsna propounds Samkhya-Yoga principles in the Gita, but the known sources do not associate Jaigisavya with Krsna at any stage of his career. Avatya, who was closely associated with Jaigisavya, and is referred to by the Yogabhasya with respect as bhagavan, is not known from any other source. Thus, the only disciple of Jaigisavya who can be helpful in fixing his date is Devala. The above analysis shows that Jaigisavya is to be placed not before Pancasikha but certainly before Devala. According to the Kürma Purāna, both Pancasikha and Jaigisavya were the pupils of Kapila. The Mahabharata mentions that Devala received spiritual teaching from Jaigisavya. The combined testimony of these two texts will make all the three, Pancasikha, Jaigisavya

184 Retrięving Samkhya History and Devala, contemporaries. U.V. Shastrj41 resolves the apparent incongruity by suggesting that as Pancasikha is reported to have enjoyed an unusually long life, he could have been, in the later part of his life, a senior contemporary of Jaigīsavya, who also may have acquired a long life and, in his turn, in his old age, was a senior contemporary of Devala. Apparently there is nothing inherently improbable in the explanation which envisages a long life for two of theearly Sāmkhya teachers, who are knownto have acquired spiritual powers through the practice of yoga. But, there is a weak link in the chain of argument. It is clear that Jaigisavya was one of the early Samkhya teachers. Whether he was a direct disciple of Kapila, as stated in the Kūrma Purāņa, cannot be confirmed. It is quite likely that the Kūrma Purāna has mixed up the chronological position of these early Samkhya teachers. We know that a long established tradition, which is accepted by Isvarakrsna also, unequivocally says that Ķapila had preached Samkhya principles to Asuri, who communicated them to Pañcasikha. There is no independent confitmation of-the teacher-student relationship between Kapila and Pancasikha. Thus, though there is a strong possibility of Jaigisavya also being one of the early Samkhya teachers, his contemporaneity with Pañcasikha as a co-pupil cannot be accepted as proven. The Buddhacarita42 of Asvaghosa provides an important clue to the date of Jaigisavya: Arāda names Jaigīşavya, Janaka and Vrddha-Parasara as upholding the philosophical views expounded by: him. According to the Buddhacarita, Buddha, before ;his enlightenment, approached Arada and'sought from him the knowledge for overcoming miseries. Arada expounded his philosophy and then made a reference to Jaigisavya and others. The historicity of Janaka and Vrddha-Parāśara, as teachers of Sāmkhya, is confirmed by other independent sources. This evidence of the Buddhacarita indicates that Jaigisavya was not later than Arāda.

41. Op. cit., 598-9. 42. XII.67.

New Beginnings by Jaigīşavya and Āvātya 185

He could have been a contemporary of Arada. Most likely he was senior to Arāda. In any case, Jaigisavya will be placed earlier than Buddha. The evidence, which we have discussed above, clearly shows that Jaigisavya enjoyed the reputation ofbeing an eminent Sämkhya philosopher of very early times. His deification as an incarnation of Śiva and the reference to his demonstrating his yogic powers to Rudra and Uma are indicative of the same. In the Vyāsabhasya on the Yogasutra the account of the dialogue between Avatya and Jaigīsavya is mentioned as an akhyana, which shows that Jaigīsavya was considered to belong to very early times. In the Santiparva the account of the dialogue between Devala and Jaigisavya is introduced as ancient history (itihāsam purātanam).43 Clearly Jaigișavya flourished several centuries before the composition of this and similar other chapters dealing with Samkhya. In another context in the Santiparva44 Jaigisavya is mentioned along with certain mythical personalities and very eminent Samkhya philosophers of a very early time, from whom Gandharva Viśvāvasu claims to have learnt Sāmkhya. Thus, we may conclude that Jaigisavya was not only earlier than Asvaghosa, but preceded the Moksadharma chapters in the Śāntiparva by several centuries. He appears not to have preceded Pañcasikha. He was definitly earlier than Āvatya, Buddha, Arāda and Devala. The date of Buddha is generally accepted to be 583-463 BC. Devala and Arada are referred to as senior contemporariés of Buddha. Jaigisavya, as a teacher of Devala and a predecessor of Arāda, can be located around 650 BC.

Āvatya The name of Avatya as a Samkhya teacher is known only from the Yogabhāsya of Vyāsa, a commentary on the Yogasūțra.45 He is

43. Mbh., XII.229.3' 44. Ibid., XII.318.59-62. 45. III.18. For the original passage see supra fn. 34 .. /.

186 Retrieving Samkhya History

mentioned as a follower (anucara) of Jaigisavya. In the passage under reference he is referred to as bhagavân at three places. This shows the high respect which he commended in Samkhya-Yoga circle. Wedo not find any reference to any text written by him or to any of his philosophical views. From the passage under reference he appears to have had a highly alert intelligent mind. He asks Jaigisavya to tell, on the basis of his having observed, in the ten cycles of creation, pain arising from hell and birth, out of pleasure and pain which is larger among gods and human beings. He further asks Jaigisavya if the highest joy of contentment (santosa-sukha)is also to be placed to the credit of pain. We do not have any means to determine, the views upheld by Avatya. But, if we believe that his views were similar to those ofhis teacher, we can hazard that he accepted the principles which Jaigisavya communicated to him and which we have indicated above. Padmapāda, in his commentary on the Prapañcasaratantra,16 detailing the various views about the process of the descent of purusa into the womb, mentions one saying that this takes place due to pious hankering of the parents for a child and their consequent observance of restriction in food and movement in confirmity with the religious injunctions.47 Padmapăda attributes this view to Apadya and others (Apadyadayah). The editor, taking Apadyadayah to be a corrupt reading, corrected it as Atreyadayah, but without giving any reason for it. C. Chakravarti" points out that a manuscript in the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal" has the reading Avadyadayah and suggests that the original reading was Avatyadayah. If this is to be accepted, it will mean that Avatya had his own peculiar views on many points, including the nature of the purusa as he is born in the world.

46. 1.94-7. 47. karmaphalamiti apatyarthinam yathoktāhāravihāra sraddhādyati sayad garbham pravisatttyapadyadayah 48 Op. cit., p. 295, fn.1. 49 G.8543, fol. 17b, 1.5.

10

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School

Sources

THE name of Vasistha as a Samkhya teacher is known from the Yuktidipika. In it Pancasikha is said to have expounded Samkhya to many, Janaka, Vasistha and others.' Noother authentic Samkhya text mentions Vasistha. We do not know ofa Samkhya text attributed to Vasistha. The only confirmation of Vasistha as a Samkhya teacher is found in the Moksadharma section of the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, chapters 302 to 308, wherein Vasistha is represented as explaining Samkhya principles to king Karala Janaka. It may be mentioned here that Sankara, in his commentary on the Brahmasutra," refers to Devala and some other authors of Dharmasutra as using Samkhya principles in their texts. Vasistha is also the author of a Dharmasutra. The testimony of Sankara is confirmed in the case of Devala. We cannot be sure if Sankara intended to include Vasistha in this test. The Vasistha-dharmasutra consists of thirty chapters, of which the ninth and tenth deal respectively with rules for forest hermits and samnyasins. But. these do not contain any account of the Samkhya-Yoga principles and practices. It is only in chapter XXVI that the virtue ofpranāyama as a purifier is mentioned. This clearly cannot justify Vasistha

bahubhyo janaka - vasisthadibhyah xamakhyatam 1-p. 175. 2 I.4.28

188 Retrieving Samkhya History

being referred to as a Samkhya teacher. Thus, our only evidence for the Samkhya views of Vasistha in the Moksadharmaparva of the Mahābhārata.

Philosophical Views of Vasistha asistha, in expounding the Sämkhya system, speaks of twenty- five categories. He enumerates the twenty-four categories as the prakrti and its evolutes, and adds that Visnu is the twenty-fifth categdry. But, m 'no:later reference Visnu is mentioned as the twenty-fifth category. It is purusa who is referred to as the twenty- fifth category. Vasistha maintains that there are only twenty-five categories. But, in chapter XI1.308 a twenty-sixth category-is introduced. Vasistha traces the course of creation through Brahma, who is formless svayambhuva but creates Brahma with a form. He is known under various names Hiranyagarbha, Mahān, Virinci, Aja, Vicitrarūpa, Visvātmā, Ekāksara. and Viśvarūpa. Under the influence of evolution (vikriya) he creates himself as ahamkāra and prajapati.characterised by it. In the subsequent account Vasistha describes creation of twenty- four tattvas in terms of prakrti and its evolutes. He names the transformation of prakrti from avyakta to vyakta, as vidyā-sarga. Mahat.and ahamkāra are designated as avidya-sarga .. The appearance of subtle elements from ahamkāra is, termed as bhūta- sarga. The simultaneous appearance of the group of ten from ahamkāra, namely the fivę gross elements (vāyu, jyoti, ākāśa, āpa and prthipt) and, their subjects (sabda, sparsa, rupa, rasa and gandha) is the vaikrta-sarga. The fifth, the bhautika-sarga, is the simultaneous creation of manas, the five sense-organs (buddhindriya) and the five organs of action (karmendriya). VThe world, made of the twenty-four tattvas, is termed as vyakta and is also named as ksara, being destroyed constantly. Different from it is the tattva which is aksara. Visnu is the twenty-fifth tattva. The Pancavimsatika is beyond tattvas (nistattva), but is called a tattva, because ofits association with thetattvas (tattvasamsrayana).

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 189

In the very next verse the twenty-fifth tatttva is described as amūrta and eternal (nitya). Though without form, it is present in all the bodies. It is not subjected to,creation and dissolution; in conjunction with the prakrti it also assumes attributes, though really it is without attributes (nirguna). Chapter 303 is devoted to a detailed exposition of the idea that the jiva, on account of its association with the prakrti, in its ignorance, considers itself to be the doer of actions and the enjoyer of their consequences: He takes birth in different forms. But, in reality it is prakrti which performs good or bad deeds and bears their consequences. Prakrti is without lingas (alinga). Its existence is to be inferred. Likewise the existence of purusa is also to be inferred. Chapter 304 further discusse's the downfall of jtva associating with ignorant people on account of the prakrti. Like the moon with sixteen kalas the jiva cannot overcome th effect of its association with the sixteenth, the prakrti, which is like ama of the moon. The jiva, ignorant about the twenty-fifth tattva, which is pure, becomes impure. In chapter 305 Vasistha dispels the doubts raised by Janaka about the relatiohship between ksara (purusa) Janaka himself regards it to be similar to the relationship between a female and a male. Vasistha emphasises the n'eed for the correct understanding of the sacred texts. The gunas and the eight constituents of a body are created out of prakrti but are not characteristic of aksara which is formless. Vasistha says that the product is similar to the cause. He repeats that ksara and aksara'are to be inferred, the prakrti through its lingas; the twenty-fifth tattva being alinga. He'points out that whereas aksara remains one and the same-(ekatva), the kșara assumes'various forms (nāhātva). The ekatva of the twenty- fifth tattva is the correct view, its nartatva is the wrong view. In chapter 306 Janaka further clarification. Vasistha spells out Samkhya and Yoga separately. In the Yoga practices (yogakrtya) he mentions dhyāna (meditation) to be of the greatest importance. Dhyana is of two kinds: concentration of mind (ekāgrata manasah)

190 Retrieving Samkhya History

and prāņāyāma. Vasiștha spells out the distinctive qualities of a yogi who sees the parama atman. In his account of Samkhya Vasistha mentions prakrti or avyakta as the first, from which is created mahat. From mahat is created ahamkara, from which come out the five (subtle) bhūtas. These are the eight prakrtis. The sixteen evolutes (vikara) are the five jnanedriyas, five karmendriyas, manas and the five gross bhūtas. The order of dissolution is in the reverse order. In the pralaya (dissolution) the prakrti is one (ekatva) and in the creation it assumes numerous forms (bahutva), The auyakta is called ksetra. The twenty-fifth tattva, the mahanatma, is called adhisthata as it resides in the kşetra. He is also called ksetrajña (or jñātā) (knower of ksetra) and puruşa. Avyakta is jnana and the twenty-fifth tattva is jneya. In Samkhya there are twenty-four tattvas, the twenty-fifth is different from the tattvas. The twenty-fifth tattva is budhyamana. When it knows itself, it becomes kevala. Avyakta is sarva. The twenty-fifth tattva is different from sarva (asarva). It knows, it is free from the cycle of birth. In chapter 307 Vasistha explains the nature of purusa and prakrti by employing pairs of opposite terms. Thus, he speaks of vidyā and avidyā. Avidyā, here, does not refer to the five avidyās (ignorance) in other Samkhya accounts. Avyakta is referred to as avidya and the twenty-fifth tattva as vidya. In the case of the twenty-four tattvas, the prakrti and its evolute, each succeeding tattva is described as avidya in relation to the preceding one, which is referred to as vidyā. Vasistha distinguishes between avyakta and the twenty-fifth tattva by describing the former as jnana, whereas the latter is designated as jñeya in one sense and vijnāta in another. He says that both these are to be termed alike as aksara and ksara. Both are without beginning and eternal, creation and dissolution are only the characteristics of avyakta, which hence is designated as aksara. On account of the creation of its evolutes it is called ksara. The mahat and other evolutes are created by the coming together of purusa and prakrti, hence, the twenty-fifth tattva is also called

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 191

ksetra because it resides in mahat and other evolutes. When the evolutes are dissolved, prakrti becomes one; ksetrajña is also dissolved in the parama atman. When the purusa realises the nature of the prakrti and its own difference from the latter, then it obtains its pure nature. In the concluding verses of the chapter Vasistha says that the Samkhya recognises only twenty-five tattuas, but the Yoga admits budhyamana and buddha as two different tattuas. In chapter 308 Vasistha explains the categories of budhyamana and buddha. The avyakta is called apratibuddha, because it does not know the parama atman. The twenty-fifth tattva is termed as budhyamāna, because it knows the avyakta, but does not know the twenty-sixth tattva, the buddha, who is pure (vimala), infinite (aprameya) and eternal (sanatana). This brahman knows the twenty-fifth and the twenty-fourth tattvas. When the budhyamana realises its difference from the avyakta and acquires the pure and highest knowledge, it reaches budhatva and recognises that it is the twenty-sixth tattva. Vasistha concludes by emphasising the principle of the difference between purusa and prakrti and of the nanatva and ekatva of purusa. He lays down the qualities of a person entitled to receive this knowledge. He describes it as the supreme knowledge (brahma param), which is the essence of all knowledge (sarvajnanasya tattvartham).

Distinctive Feature of Vasistha's Views The exposition of Samkhya by Vasistha has several distinctive features. It is based on the dualism of the conscious and the unconscious tattvas. Though the terms purusa and prakrti occur at places, Vasistha prefers to use the term pañcavimsaka and avyakta. He employs sets of words to bring out the distinction between prakrti and purusa: kşara, akșara ksetra and adhisthatā, and jñāna and jñātā or jneya. This would refer to a period, long before the fixity of terms, which followed the standardisation introduced by Īśvarakrșņa.

192 Retrieving Samkhya History A similar fluidity is to be noticed in regard to the terms vidyā and avidya: In the Samkhya system avidya (ignorance) has a special meaning. Avidya is said to be of five kinds. But Vasistha uses avidya in juxtaposition to vidya. It is does not refer to any special type of ignorance. It signifies something false; non-existent or having a semblance of reality. Vidyd refers to something true, existent and real. This is why among the evolutes, of prakrti an earlier tattva is called vidya, whereas the succeeding one is described as avidya. This feature also refers to a period earlier than the period of the acceptance of the technical meaning of avidy as ignòrance. . The Samkhya system presents prakrii and its evolutes into two groups the qstaprakrtis (eight prakrtis) and the sodasą vikāras (sixteen evolutes). Vasistha classifies the evolution of prakrti and twenty-three tattvas into five stages: vidyā-sarga, avidyā-sarga, bhūta-sarga, vaikrta-sarga and bhautika-sarga. The Samkhyakārika3 refers. to two types of sargas: linga and bhava, and then adds bhautika-sarga as a third. In an earlier krika (46) it speaks of the pratyaya-sarga. Of the five types of sargas, it is only the bhautika- sarga which occurs in the Samkhyakarika, but its connotation differs readically from that of Vasistha. It is only the linga-sarga in the Samkhyakarika which covers the sargas of Vasistha, but in a very different manner. The Ahirbudhnyasamhita," in describing the sixty topics of Samkhya-tantra, has a different scheme. It divides thè èlements into two mandalas, prākrfa and vaikrta, of which the thirty-two in the first division include guna-tantra, akşara-tantra, prāņa-tantra, kartr-tantra, šāmi-tantra, jūāna- tantra, kriya-tantra, matra-tantra and bhūta-tantra. But, these are not described in terms of sargas. This feature also refers to an early stage in the history of Samkhya long before it adopted the broad classification into two groups; prakrti and-basic tattvas, and the sixteen evolutes visibly characterising the world. The most significant feature ofSamkhya presented by Vasistha is the acceptance of a twenty-sixth (sadvimsaka)tattva, the buddha.

3. Kārikā, 52-3. 4. XII.19-30.

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 193

This is all the more important, because Vasistha, after describing the twenty-four tattvas, mentions the twenty-fifth (pancavimsaka) tattva in great details, and then adds that there are only twenty-five tattvas and no other tattva beyond it. There is a close affinity and connection between the twenty- fifth and twenty-sixth tattvas. Both are to be contrasted with the twenty-fourth tattva (caturvimsaka), the avyakta which is devoid of consciousness (apratibuddha). The twenty-fourth tattva is buddhyamana. It knows the avyakta, but does not know the buddha. It has the potentiality of knowing the buddha. In association with the avyakta it identifies itself with the avyakta and its evolutes. When it realises its own nature and its difference from avyakta, it realises that it is buddha and becomes buddha. Vasistha emphasises that, though included in the list of tattvas, the twenty- fifth is different from the tattvas. The Samkhya system subscribes to the view of plurality (anekatva) of purusas. Vasistha differs from it in a significant manner. He holds that the twenty-fifth tattva is characterised by both ekatva and nanatva. It is one, but in association with the ksetra, the avyakta and the evolutes with their gunas, it considers itself to haye numerous forms. The nanatva is removed when it realises its distinction from the prakrti. In this sense the twenty- fifth tattva of Vasistha signifies the individual jīva. It is like atman in the Upanisads, which is the same as the brahman, but it has to realise its. oneness with brahman. Thus, the twenty-fifth and twenty-sixth tattvas detailed by Vasistha differ from the concept of purusa in the standardised Sämkhya and are very close to the idea = ofätman and brahman in the Upanisads. As rightly pointed out by P. Chakravarti,5 Vasistha has tried 'to recpncile the Samkhya theory of the plurality of the spirits with the doctrine of unity'. Vasisthapresents an account of creation which differs radically from the philosophical view of creation and dissolution through prakrti. He refers to Brahma or Hiranyagarbha, known under various names, who, subjecting himself to the process of evolution 5. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 48.

194 Retrieving Samkhya History (vikriyā), creates, ahamkāra and prajāpati characterised by ahamkāra. Then he narrates the process of creation with avyakta becoming vyakta. Evidently, Vasistha takes shelter under the concept of Brahma Hiranyagarbha to explain the evolution from the avyakta. Vasistha says that the existence of prakrti and the alinga (atman) is to be known through inference. The prakrti is'inferred from its evolute lingas. The argument here is only in a nascent form; it is not properly and systematically developed. We know that Isvarakrsna advancese arguments for the existence of prakrti and purusa. In this respect Vasistha evidently represents an early stage in the history of Samkhya system.

Vasiștha in History In evaluating the role of Vasistha in the history of the Samkhya system we have to identify him and locate him in time. Traditionally Vasistha is described as the son of Brahmā. The family lineage after Vasistha is Sakti Parāśara and Vyāsa. In the Vișņu Purāna6 Vasistha is referred to as the family preceptor of Iksvāku (iksvaku-kulacarya), who was the son of Vaivasvata Manu. The name of Vasistha occurs in connection with many important events in the history of Iksväku family, which are far removed from one another .? According to a narrative found in the Ramayana and Visnu Purana,8 on account of a mutual clash both Nimi, the twelfth son of Iksvaku, and Vasistha the family, priest and the son of Brahmā, died by cursing each other. Through the blessings of Brahma Vasistha was reborn from the semen of Mitra-Varuna in Urvaśī. The Rāmāyaņa adds that Iksyāku reappointed Vasistha as the family precéptor. Next, Vasistha was requested by Triśanku, belonging to the twenty-seventh generation of Iksvāku, to transmit him to the heaven in his human body through sacrifice. Vasistha

6. IV.2.17. 7. Uttara chapters, 55-6. 8. IV.5. 9. Ram., Bala, 57.10-12.

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 195

is reported to have participated in many sacrifices performed by Daśaratha,1° who was in the thirty-second generation after Trisanku. Evidently no single person can be expected to have such a long life as to be present in all the events separated from one another by centuries. Possibly different persons with the same name have been mixed up in these accounts. It is not unlikely that all the family preceptors of the Iksvākus were alike named as Vasistha, referring to their family. The question remains: who was the Vasistha the Samkhya teacher. U.V. Shastri,11 relying on the appellation Maitra-Varuni given to Vasistha in the Mahabharata,12 regards him to be the same sage who had a quarrel with Nimi. He says that Karāla Janaka, to whom Vasistha expounded Samkhya, was the son of Nimi, either . Mithi Janaka or his brother. The designation Maitravaruņi is incongruous and ill suits the Vasistha under study. A. P. Mishra13 suggests that, on account of the similarity of name, this adjective used for.the contemporary of Nimi, was applied to the later Vasistha. Possibly, it was not a case of mistaken, identity. To add to the prestige of the exposition of Samkhya by Vasistha and assign it a respectable antiquity Vasistha was connected with Brahmā, and, in the process; was described as the son of Mitra-Varuna. İn the list of rsis Pargiter14 mentions Vasistha as the family preceptor of king Sudasa of the Suryavamsa, This Vasistha was the father of Sakti and grandfather of Parasara. Sudasa was in the twelfth generation after king Sagara of the Iksvāku dynasty. 1 Ramacandra belonged to the twelfth generation after Sudasa. A.P. Mishra15 considers Vasistha under reference to be a contemporary of Sudåsa. But, when according to this view Karāla Janaka is located in the royal family of Videha as a contemporary of Vasistha

10 Rām., 10, 14. 11. Sāmkhyadarsana ka Ițihāsa, p. 588. 12. XII.302.9. . Sāmkhya-Darsana ki Aitihasika Paramparā, p. 147. 14. Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, p. 15. Op. cit., pp. 146-7

196 Retrieving Samkhya History and Sudasa it leads to chronological confusion. In the dynastic list of Videha, we find several kings having the name of Janaka, which seems to have been used as a family name. But the name Karala does not appear in this list. Rama, in the twelfth generation after Sudasa, married Sita, the daughter of Janaka Stradhvaja. Kusadhvaja was the younger brother of Siradhvaja. Dharmadhvaja Janaka, mentioned in the Moksadharmaparva of the Mahabharata1 is taken to have been a son of Kusadhvaja. There is no evidence for placing Karala Janaka in the times of Sudasa, twelve generations before Rama and Janaka Siradhvaja. Hence, the suggestion for identifying the Samkhya Vasistha with Vasistha, a contemporary of Sudasa, remains unconfirmed, The suggestion creates a serious problem. Vasistha, as a contemporary of Sudasa, will be twelve generations before Rama. This will be in violent conflict with the testimony of the Yuktidipikd naming Vasistha as one of the disciples of Pañcasikha. There is some evidence to indicate that Vasistha, the Samkhya teacher, was a historical being and not a mythological sage. The Yuktidipikd records that Vasistha was one of the disciples to whom Pancasikha had communicated the Samkhya principles. In the Moksadharmaparva Bhisma narrates to Yuidhisthira the dialogue between Vasistha and king Karala Janaka as an ancient historical narrative (itihāsam purātanam) and not as a legend or myth. This is strengthened by the fact that Vasistha is stated to have expounded the Samkhya principles to Karāla Janaka, a historical persunality, and in the process explained the doubts raised by him. Janaka often appears as a general name for kings of Videha with their capital at Mithila. The name of Karala Janaka does not figure in the Puranic list of kings. But it is well-known that the Puranic lists suffer from defects of omission and commission. In this case we have the testimony ofindependent sources confirming the existence of a king named Karala Janaka. In the Majjhima Nikaya17 Buddha tells Ånanda that Karala Janaka did not follow the holy path and did not become an ascetic. The Nimi-Jataka (Jataka No. 541) records that 16. XIL320.4 17. Mahādeva, Suttanta, 83.

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 197

Nimi's son Kalara Janaka brought his line to an end. The Arthasastra15 refers to Karāla Vaideha (king of Videha), who was destroyed along with his kinsmen and kingdom on account of the forceful seizure of a brahmana girl. It can be easily seen that Karala Vaideha refers to Karala Janaka, Janaka being a common name given to kings of Videha. The reference occurs as an instance of historical cases of kings perishing on account of their immoral deeds. Asvaghosa in his Buddhacarita" mentions Karala as Maithila. This evidently refers to Karala Janaka. The appellation Maithila is a paraphrasing of Vaideha applied to him by Kautilya. Another passage in the Buddhacarita" says that Karala Janaka took away a brähmana maiden and gained nothing but ruin; still he did not give up passion. Asvaghosa seems to have followed the evidence of the Arthasastra or another earlier source or tradition which Kautilya had himself used. Asvaghosa mentions Karala Maithila along with Dandaka. It is significant that Kautilya also refers to the cases of King Dandakya Bhoja and Karala Vaideha together as instances of kings perishing along with their kinsmen and kingdom on account of entertaining a sinful desire for a brahmana maiden.

His Date

There has been no serious effort to determine the date of Vasistha. One indication is the Moksadharmaparva in which Bhisma refers to the dialogue between Vasistha and Karala Janaka as an ancient narrative. Bhagavaddatt21 places Vasistha 40-50 years before the Mahabharata War in the times of Nimi II, mentioning Karala Janaka as his son. If any reliance is placed on the evidence of the Mahabharata, Vasistha will be much earlier. Bhisma himself had enjoyed a long life before he lay on the arrow-bed in the Mahabharata War. It is to be noted that the account in the Moksadharmaparva

18. I.6.5. 19 XI.31 20. IV.80. 21. Bharatavarsa ka Itihaxa, p. 160; referred to by U.V. Shastri, op. cit., p. 587.

198 Retrieving Samkhya History

is not part of the original story. It was inserted in the Epic at a very late stage. Hence the date of events and persons referred to in this account cannot be inferred with reference to the characters of the original story. Thus, the account need not be an ancient narrative long before Bhisma. We can say that it was considered an ancient history at the time of the composition of the relevant chapters or their insertion in the Epic. Hence, on the testimony of these chapters in the Moksadharmaparva, Vasistha, the Samkhya teacher cannot be placed before the times of Bhisma in the Epic story. As we have pointed out earlier, the author of the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva, for giving prestige to Vasistha, the expounder of Samkhya principles to a historical king named Karāla Janaka, equated him with the sage of legendary fame, venerated as a son of Brahma. In the same process the account of his dialogue with Karāla Janaka was introduced by Bhișma as an ancient narrative. In fixing the date of Vasistha, the Samkhya teacher, we need not take all the details of the legendary references to Vasistha, the ancient sage. On this basis U.V.Shastri" places him in the beginning of the treta age. This creates serious problems arising out of the traditional account about the association of Vasistha with Iksvaku, Nimi, Sagara, Sudasa and Rama. Likewise, there will be difficulty about Pancasikha and his chronological position with regard to Kapila. Pancasikha will, then, have to be assigned as exceptionally long life to become the contemporary of Kapila, Asuri and his own many students, such as Jaigisavya, Janaka, and Vasisțha. The date of Vasistha can be narrowed down to limits with tolerably dependable approximation. The starting point for our calculation is the statement in the Yuktidipika associating Vasistha with Pancasikha, a historical person, from whom he is said to have received the knowledge of Samkhya. This would make Vasistha a junior contemporary of Pancasikha. The Mahabharata account of the dialogue between Vasistha and Karala Janaka will likewise make Karala Janaka a junior contemporary of Vasistha. On a superficial view the testimony of the Yuktidipikd appears

22. Op. cit. p. 588

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 199

to be a little confusing. It mentions Janaka first Vasistha next as having received the exposition from Pancasikha. But, this Janaka is not to be confused with Karala Janaka. In the Mahabharata itself we have a reference to another Samkhya teacher named Dharmadhvaja Janaka who claims to have been a student of Pancasikha.It has been suggested that this Dharmadhvaja Janaka was possibly the son of Kusadhvaja, a younger brother of Siradhvaja Janaka, the father of Sita.2 Thus, Janaka mentioned by the Yuktidipika as a direct student of Pancasikha could not have been the same as Karāla Janaka, a student of Vasistha. The association of Karala Janaka with Vasistha helps us fix the date of Vasistha with a certainty which is unfortunately not found in the history of Indian philosophy. Karala Janaka was in the historical memory of the people in the times of the Arthasastra, Jatakas and Majjhima-nikaya. He does not seem to have been far removed from the times of the Buddha. The combined testimony of the Jataka, Arthasastra and Buddhacarita records the historical fact that the Janaka dynasty ended with Karala" Janaka. It is generally believed that the Vajji republic of Vaisali was founded on the ruins of the Videha kingdom. Yogendra Mishra fixes the end of the Janaka dynasty of Videha and the foundation of the Vaiji republic in about 725 Bc.26 On this basis, Vasistha, the Samkhya teacher, may be placed roughly in 775-700 BC.

His Place in Samkhya History According to the Yuktidipika, Pancasikha had expounded Samkhya

23. Mbh., XII,320.4 24. A.P. Mishra, op, cit., p. 144. According to Visnu Purano, IV.5.29 Kusadhvaja was the brother of Siradhvaja, but Bhagavato Purana. IX.23.39 mentions him as the son of Stradvaja. 25 Karala, meaning terrible, was possibly a nick-name which the king earned on account of his immoral deeds. We have parallel examples of Kalasoka in Indian history and of Ivan the Terrible in the history of Russia. 26. An Early History of Vaisali, pp. 98-102. See also Comprehenive History of Bihart Vol. 1, Part I. ed. by B.P. Sinha, p. 225.

200 Retrieving Samkhya History to Vasistha. We do not know the details of this.exposition. The philosophical principles propounded by Pancasikha are not available in their original form. There is no surety about his authorship ofthe texts which are sometimes attributed to him. There are. many passages, quoted from his work scattered in later commentaries besides the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva .. Though the full system presented by him cannot be reconstructed, we do get an idea of some of the significant points made by him .. In the case of Vasístha, as we have pointed out, our knowledge is confined to the seven chapters in the Moksadharmaparva. 'A comparison of the expositions attributed to the two Samkhya teachers shows.that, besides general similarițies, there is no significant oneness in respect of special points. It would seem that, though Vasistha learnt the basic principles of Sāmkhya from Pancasikha, he developed his own system. This possibly gave him the prestige of an independent teacher of Sāmkhya. The Moksadharmaparva chapters project this image of Vasistha. The chapters do not make the slightest allusion to his indebtedness to Pancasikha; though in the case of some other thinkers there isan avowed declaration to their association with Pancasikha. Vasistha claims that he made efforts to please the eternal Brahmă Hiranyagarbha and from his mouth received the' knowledge.27 Later, Bhīsma repeats that the high-souled sage Vasistha got this knowledge from Hiranyagarbha. Narada obtained it from Vasistha. Bhisma says that he himself acquired it from Narada. Byintroducing Hiranyagarbha as the. originator, of the Samkhya principles, expounded by him, and by not referring to any human teacher. Vasistha claims a high prestige for his system and also originality for himself. The significant point ôf departure is the fact that Hiranyagarbha is mentioned as the originator of Samkhya, whereas the general tradition, associates Hiranyagarbha with the exposition of Yoga. The association of Hiranyagarbha suited the new formulation of Samkhya principles which Vasistha attempted, and which differed

27. Mbh., XII.308.40.

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 201

from the exposition offered, earlier by Pancasikha. Vasistha uses Hiranyagarbha as the bridge to connect Samkhya and Yoga. He himself brings out this point in the introductory verses of his exposition to Karala Janaka.28 He refers to Hiranyagarbha and mentions the various names under which he is known. In the Yoga system he is designated as mahan. Vasistha adds that in the Samkhyasastra. Hiranyagarbha is referred to under various names. Our discussion suggests that Vasistha had created an independent school of Sämkhya. The separate line of transmission through Narada to Bhisma is recorded in the Mahabharata.29The subsequent history of the school after Bhisma is not mentioned: The Mahabhārata has rėcorded his exposition to Karāla Janaka. The continuationsof the school after Karala is not known: The unfavourable remark made by the Buddha in the Majjhima-nikaya, shows that the salutary principles were lost upon Karāla Janaka. In the Mahabharata Vasistha remarks that he has presented the illuminating knowledge clearly with the desire for the good of his disciples (sisyq).80, The real significance of the exposition of Samkhya by Vasistha in the Moksadharmaparva and also of other accounts of Smkhya in the section has often mot been-appreciated. Thus, Hopkins31 dismisses the Epic Sanikhya as the hybrid hotch-potch of the genuine Samkhya. Keith;3 likewise, observes that the Epic does not ascribe the doctrine of Brahman to the Sämkhya proper. Such views suffer from a preconceived obsession to įdentify Samkhya with its form in the Samkhyakarika and to take Samkhya to be fixed and unchanging. The possibility of a change or development in the long course of Samkhya history is not duly recognised. Likewise, it is fallacious to take the Mahabharata as, one unified text and to synthesise all the various accounts of Samkhya in it as

28. Mbh., XII.302.18-20. 29. Ibid., XII.308.44-6. 30. Ibid., XIÌ.307.45. 31. The Great Epic of India, p. 32. Samkhya System, p. 57.

202 Retrieving Samkhya History

being uniformly one. At different period portions have been accommodated in the text. All the Samkhya views recorded in it are not to be processed as representing just one view by ironing out the inconvenient details and differences. Within the Samkhya system itself in the early phases of its history there were a number of schools or sub-systems with widely divergent views even on some vital points. The exposition by Vasistha represents one such school. P. Chakravarti" terms it as the Samkhya-Yoga school of the Epic. It is clear that whatever synthesis Vasistha forged and the points he emphasised, he considered himself to be basically a Samkhya teacher. This is indicated by the concluding verses of chapter 307" in which at the end of his discourses he says that he has expounded the Sämkhya philosophy, which is very wide (brhat), and that he has described the highest tattua in Samkhya in the proper manner. He admits the separate nature of Samkhya and Yoga as two systems. When Karala Janaka wants him to expound the two separately, he does so.5 But in the separate account of Yoga he emphasises only the practice (yoga-krtya) of dhyāna, including prānāyāma. Vasistha places Samkhya and Yoga together.35 The two are treated as in separable." Vasistha says that whatever the seekers of Yoga observe that the followers of Samkhya about: he alone is wise who sees Samkhya and Yoga to be one.35 Later on he repeats that whatever is Samkhyasastra that is also Yoga philosophy. Vasistha goes a step further and attempts a fusion of Samkhya with Yoga. He does not merely present the two together. This can be seen in chapters 307 and 308. In verse 47 of chapter 307 Vasistha says that, according to the Samkhya, there is no tattua beyond the twenty-fifth, but, in the following verse he adds that, according to the Yoga philosophy, there are the tattvas of buddhyamana and

33. Op. cit., p. 51. 34. XII.307.45-47. 35. Mbh., XII.305, 5-46, See also XII.307.44. 36. Ibid., XII.305.18;31. 37. Ibid., XII.305, 33 - samkhyayoga ca kusalak I 38. Ibid., XI1.305,19.

Vasistha and the Samkhya-Yoga School 203

buddha. In chapter 308 Vasistha explains, in some details, the concepts ofapratibuddha, budhyamana and buddha. In concluding verses he remarks that, according to the Samkhya philosophy, the concept of nanatva is that in the light of prabuddha, the twenty- sixth tattva, the jtva is budhyamana (knows the apratibuddha), but is also abuddhiman (does not know the buddha).

Conclusion

Thus, we see that Vasistha was a Samkhya philosopher who belonged to the eighth century Bc (c. 775-700 BC). He had learnt Samkhya principles from Pancasikha and, in turn, had discoursed his views to Karala Janaka and others. Because of his important contributions in the field of philosophical thought, he was given an honoured position and was mixed up with the ancient sage Vasistha of legendary fame. Vasistha belonged to an age when Samkhya and Yoga had become very close. Vasistha accommodated some important points of Yoga into his presentation of Samkhya principles and also introduced some new features. He gave Hiranyagarbha a high place as the originator of the Samkhya views which he expounded. He mooted the concept of the twenty-sixth tattva buddha, or supreme soul. In his account he used many pairs of terms to refer to prakrti and purusa: kşetra and kşetrajña or adhișthātā, kşara and akșara, and jñana and jñata or jneya. He argued for the principle of unity as characterising the plurality of purusa (or jtva). His concept of budhyamana and buddha, with budhyamana realising his differences from apratibuddha (prakrti) and oneness with buddha, and becoming buddha has parallel in the Upanisadic concepts of atman and brahman. Vasistha used inference (anumana) to prove the existence of prakrti and purusa. He classified the appearance of prakrti and its evolutes into five stages of creation (sargas). After the standardisation of Samkhya by Isvarakrsna the school of Vasistha gradually lost its force, leaving only a brief memory in the Mahabharata.

11

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahābhārata

Introduction

THE Moksadharmaparva in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, chapter 275' gives an account of the views of Asita-Devala. The narrative has several clearly recognisable elements of the Samkhya system. The last but one verse refers to the knowledge of Samkhya as essential for wiping out the effects of punya (merit) and pāpa (sin).2 Asita-Devala is recognised as a Sämkhya authority. In the Mahabharata itself Asita-Devala is connected with Samkhya through Siva,3 who is described as imparting Samkhya.4 But the chapter has not received due attention from modern authorities on Samkhya. S.N. Dasgupta, E. Johnston and E. Frauwallner have not taken note of this presentation of Samkhya in their publication. A.B. Keith5 dismisses it by remarking that "the details of this version deviate more and more from any normal schedule, the organs of knowledge being reckoned at eight".

1. Gita Press, Gorakhpur, In Poona Critical Edition it occurs as chapter 267. 2. Verse 38. 3. XII 18.8. 4. XIII.14.198; XIII.17.63. 5. History of Samkhya Philosophy, p. 47

206 Retrieving Samkhya History

P. Chakravarti" points out that it differs to a considerable extent from the orthodox Samkhya, As contrasted with these, studies of Samkhya in Hindi take a more direct notice of this chapter." But some recent studies of Samkhya as enunciated in the Mahabharata, do not recognise the separate existence of this chapter. Taking the accounts of Samkhya in different chapters of the Santiparva to present one uniform picture, they do not work out the possibility of variations reflecting the differences in the views of various authors of the Samkhya system. E.W. Hopkins was the first to present an account of the contents of the chapter, but he did not attempt its proper assessment for the history of Samkhya.

Contents of the Chapter The introductory verse of the chapter refers to the intention of the author to present Asita-Devala's views on the creation and destruction of the creatures (bhūtānam prabhavapyayam). Narada wants to know from whence the universe, consisting of mobile and immobile objects, is created and in whom does it merge at the time of final destruction (pralaya) (verses 1-3). Asita says that there are five great essences from which kāla

6 Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 44. 128. 7. U.V. Shastri, Samkhyadarsana ka itihasa, 2nd edn., p. 606: A.P. Mishra, Samkhyadarsana kt aitihasika parampara, pp. 157-8; U. Kushwaha, Samkhyadarsana aur dyurveda, p. 16, H.S. Joshi, Samkhya-yoga darsana ka jirnoddhara, pp. 64, 216-7; G.S. Musalgaonkar, Samkhya-tattva-kaumudt (4th edn.), Introduction, pp. 46-7 8 Ram Suresh Pandey, Mahabharata aur puranon men samkhya- darsana, p. 347; Ram Chandar Singh, Ayurvedikasamhitdon ke prakāsa men mahabharata men nihita samkhya-yoga prasthāna kl cajnaniha samiksa. Thesis submitted for Ph.D. Degree of Banaras Hindu University, 1981. 9. The Great Epic of India, pp. 155-7.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 207

creates creatures moved by bhava." These five gross elements are eternal, indesctructible and unchangeable, and are by nature possessed of mighty energy." They are water, space, earth, wind and heat, kala being the sixth. There is nothing higher than these. If any one asserts the existence of anything else, then his assertion would be idle. These five, kala, bhava and abhava make the eight eternal bhutas which funetion in the creation and dissolution of all beings (bhavatyayau). A creature, when destroyed, is divided into these five once again. The body is made of earth, the ear from air, the eye from the sun, the breath from the wind, and the blood from water (verses 4-11). Verses 12 to 22 give an account of organs of knowledge and of action and their attributes (jnana-cestendriya-gunas). There are five senses which are the organs of knowledge: eye, nose, ear, skin and tongue, with their functions of sight, hearing, smelling, touch and taste, and their gunas (constituents) as colour, smell, taste, touch and sound (verses 12-14). But these gunas are copmprehended by the ksetrajna12 (soul) and not by senses (verse 15). Citta

10. Verse 4 of Critical Edition has the following reading: yebhyah srjati bhatani kalo bhavapracoditah mahäbhūtani pañceti tanyahurbhūtacintakah I1 Some versions read kale for kalo and hence postulate that praramatmd, understood here, is the subject of the verb srjati. The reading in verse 5 is kalo bhauaprocoditah; it confirms the reading kalo in verse 4. Some versions have dtma - in place of bhdva - in verse 5. This i5 inconsistent and confusing. Hopkins translates the two phrases as meaning 'impelled by being' and 'impelled by soul'. Bhava is also a crucial term. It has been taken to mean 'the desire for becoming many' 'the desire for existence as many'. But the term occurs later in verses 25 to 28 to signify the three states of mind: sattva, tamas and rajas. 11. Verse 6 - mahatastejaso rasin. The expression has sometimes been interpreted to mean the rays of effulgent mahat. But a careful analysis shows that in the scheme of creation no superior force, mahat or paramatman, is given any place Hopkins takes it to signify a group (rasi) of great effulgence. 12. Other terms, used for ksetrajna in the following verses, are dehl. saririn, ksetri and jantu.

208 Retrieving Samkhya History

(perception)1"is higher than the group ofsense (indriya-samghata). Manas (mind) is higher than citta. Buddhi (intellect) is higher than manas. Ksetrajna is higher than buddhi. A creative first becomes aware (cetayate) of different objects through the senses, then pondering (vicarya) with the mind he determines (uyavasyati)them (verses 16-17). The eight organs of knowledge (jnanendriyas) and citta, the group of five senses (indriya-samghata), manas and buddhi (verse 18). Pāni (hands), pāda (feet), pāyu (anal duct), mehana (membrum virile) and mukha (mouth) are the five organs of action (karmendriya) with their respective functions. Bala (muscular power) is the sixth organ of action14 (verses 19-22). Verses 23 to 27 bring out the difference between sleep and dream and refer to the three bhavas.15 When, on account of srama (exertion) the organs cease to perform their function, it is said that the person sleeps (svapiti). If the organs cease to function, but the mind does not do so and enjoys the objects (visayan), it is the act of dreaming (svapna-darsanam). There are three bhavas: sattvika, rajasika and tamasika; they are lauded when they are exhibited in action (karmayuktān prasamsanti). Happiness (ananda), success (karmāņām siddhih), knowledge (pratipatti), and absence of attachment(paragati) are the attributes (nimittāni) of sättvika bhäva (in the wakeful stage): they reapper in memory (during sleep). In creatures, whatever bhavas (sāttvika, rajasika or tamasika) are based on vidhi (action), their passage from one bhäva into another (waking and sleeping)16

13. Citta is not properly defined here. Some other systems of philosophy mention it as of a higher order than buddhi. Here it possibly refers to vague awareness, mere sensation or indefinite perception. Verse 17 attributes to the indriyas the function which derivatively should have belanged to citta (cetayate). 14. Here the reading is sad etani vacd samyag yatha mama. The Critical Edition reads yathagamam which would mean that Devala claims to have named six organs of action. 15. The verses, particularly 25 to 27, have been variously interpreted as the account is not very lucid. 16. The term bhava in verse 27 has been used in two different senses- first, for one of the three bhdvas(sattvika, tamasika and rajasika) and later for one of the two stages of sleep and dream

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 209

is agreeable and constant and can be directly apprehended (verses 23-27). There are seventeen gunas (constituents) including fourteen indriyas and three bhavas. The dehl, who is in the body, is the eighteenth. He is eternal. All these gunas are attached to the saririn (deht): when he disappears, the gunas also disappear along with the body. This body made of five primal bhūtas (elements) is only a temporary union (sannipata). Along with the saririn the gunas number one and eighteen."7 Along with usman1" the body composed of five bhutas becomes a combination (samghata) of twenty gunas. The mahat19 along with vayu20 upholds the body (verses 28-31).21 In the destruction of the body (deha-bhedane) vayu is the instrument of mahat, which alone is effective." Upon theexhausation of punya and pāpa a creature is resolved into the five elements in the same manner as it is created. Propelled by punya and pâpa he enters in due course of time a body resulting from his acts." The ksetri, urged on by kala (time), migrates from one body to another

17. ekasa dasa castau ca gunah saha saririnam The text does not make clear the identification of this one (eka) besides the eighteen referred to in verse 28. 18. Usman, thus, becomes the twentieth element. But its exact nature is not defined. The commentator takes it to mean the internal heat of the stomach 19 Mahat, which is evidently different from ksetrajria or dehl, has nnt been explained in the text. 20 Possibly vayu here stands for üsman. But in Mbh., XII.219.9 üsman and vayu are differentiated 21. In the Critical Edition the grouping of lines differs slightly. Its verse 30 consista of three lines; verse 30+31a. Accordingly, its verse 31=31b+32a; verse 32=32b+33a. It drops 33b and condenses verse 34 to form its verse 33 of one line only. Its verses 34 to 38 are equivalent to verses 35 to 39 of the Gita Press edition 22 Verse 32 - tasya prabhavayuktasya nimittam dehabhedane The Critical Edition reads tasydsya bhava. The line has been interpreted differently, because it is not clear which element is denoted by tasya and which element is considered to be nimitta. 23. Verse 33 -The Critical Edition drops this Jine.

210 Retrieving Samkhya History abandoning them in succession.24 Those who are enlightened have a definite knowledge (niscita-niscayah) and do not grieve; those, who are ignorant, see connexions (sambandha-darsinah)25 (where they do not exist) and experience grief. The deht is not related to anybody else nor is anybody related to him, He alone is eternal, but, in the body, he is subjected to happiness and misery. He is never born, nor does he die. After giving up the body, he sometimes succeeds in attaining the highest end. After exhausting the karma, he destroys the body subject to punya and papa attains to Brahmatva. The knowledge of Samkhya (samkhya-jnanam)26 is propounded for the exhaustion of punya and papa; by their exhaustion is realised the highest end in Brahma-bhava (verses 32-39).

Asita-Devala and Devala In the Devala chapter the introductory verse refers to the interlocution between Narada and Asita-Devala. The second verse mentions Narada approaching Devala. In the following verse Narada poses his philosophical query and the reply is introduced by the expression asita uvaca. The colophon of the chapter refers to the dialogue between Narada and Asita. Clearly the author of the chapter took the names Asita-Devala, Devala and Asita to signify one and the same person. A similar use of the names is seen in other parts of the Mahabharata. In chapter 229 of the Santiparva verse 3 refers to the interlocution between Asita and Jaigisavya, but the following verse mentions Jaigisavya addressing Asita-Devala. Later in the chapter we find the introductory phrase devala uvaca. Devala is mentioned in some other Parvas of the Mahabharata. At places the name appears also as Asita-Devala, which leads to the 24 Verse 34- hituā hitva hyayam praiti dehad deham krtasrayah kalasamcoditah ksetri visirnad va grhád grham 11 The Critical Edition compresses it into one line by omitting the words from praiti to kalasamcoditah and thus a reference to the role of kala in this context is avoided. 25. The Critical Edition reads sambhandhimaninah. 26 Critical Edition - samkhyam jnanam.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 211

conclusion that the same person has been named both as Devala and Asita-Devala. There is, however, some evidence mentioning Asita and Devala as two different persons. Thus, in the Gita" Asita and Devala are named as two different sages. A.P. Mishra2 points out that in the Sandila gotra the pravaras are Sandilya, Asita and Devala," of which Asita was earlier than Devala. Relying on the testimony of the Satapatha, as quoted in the Nirnayasindhu, he takes Asita to have been the father of Devala. He, therefore, suggests that the reading Asita-Devala in the Mbh., XII.229.3-4 is to be amended as Asita-Devala. But, this is not the solitary reference to Asita-Devala. In the Mahabharata itself0 there are many passages where the names Asita, Devala and Asita-Devala are interchangeable. In all these cases Asita and Asita-Devala cannot be corrected to read Åsita and Åsita-Devala respectively. There is an undoubted tradition about Asita and Devala being the names of two different sages.31 How the two names were fused into one is not known. It is not unlikely that, in the beginning, to distinguish him from other persons with the name Devala, the Samkhya teacher was designated as Asita-Devala. The Mahabharata evidence envisages more than one Devala,32 In course of time the appellation Äsita came to be transformed into the name Asita. The early Jain texts also record the two traditions Asie Davila (= Asita-Devala) as one person and Asita and Devala being two persons." Here the name of Asita appears as Asiya (= Asita). Possibly the second tradition was misled by the form Asita-Devala to conjecture the name Asita for Asita. 27. X.13 28 Op. cit., pp. 157-8. 29. Kamalakarabhatta's Nirnayasindhu, p. 386. 30 S Sorensen, Index of Proper Names in the Mahabharata, s.v. Asita- Devala and Devala 31 Mbh., XII.47.7 for Asita as a sage 32. S. Sorensen, loc. cit. 33. See Appendix II. Stlanka in his commentary on Sutrakrtanga, I.1.3.4 took the expression Asita-Devila to imply twe different persens Asita and Devala.

212 Retrieving Samkhya History

It is, however, clear that later on Devala was often referred to as Asita-Devala. Asita is sometimes used as an appellation for Devala and sometimes stands for him. Apparently, the earlier association with Asita, the name of his father, was forgotten. Possibly Asita came to be used as an adjective qualifying Devala. We have a parallel case in the name of Krsna Dvaipāyana. The Mahabharata records some interesting details about Devala or Asita-Devala. He was a famous sage and was the son of Pratyusa, a Vasu.3 At another place he is mentioned as the elder brother of sage Dhaumya and as having participated in the serpent sacrifice of Janamejaya,35 He was present at the coronation of Yudhisthira along with other sages," addressed Yudhisthira on the Anjana mountain,37 To evaluate the significance of the present chapter (hereinafter referred to as Devala chapter) we may look into its context. The general framework of the Santiparva is an interlocution between Yudhişthira and Bhisma. Yodhisthira implores Bhisma to educate him on many questions of a political, social, moral and religious nature. About half of the chapters (174 to 365) are traditionally taken to form a distinct sub-section of the Santiparva and are designated as Moksadharmaparva. The present chapter occurs in the Moksadharmaparva. Its immediate connection is to be seen in the opening verse of chapter 273 wherein Yudhisthira asks Bhisma how a man becomes sinful (papatma), how he performs virtous acts (dharmam), how he attains renunciation (nirvedam), and how he attains emancipation (moksam). Chapter 273 contains the explanation given by Bhisma. In the opening verse of chapter 274 Yudhisthira requests Bhisma to enlighten him about the means (upaya) for attaining emancipation. Chapter 275 is not introduced by any question posed by Yudhisthira. Bhisma, on his own, says that in this connexion is cited the old narrative (itihasam puratanam)

34. 1.66.26 35 1.53.8; 182.2. 36. II.53.10. 37. I1.78.15.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 213

of the interlocution (samvadam) between Narada and Asita. This narrative in its turn is introduced by saying that Narada asked Devala about the origin and destruction (prabhavapyayam) of the creatures (bhutanam). In the following verses Asita presents his views. In chapter 273 Yudhisthira asks Bhisma how to dispel the craving for material gains (arthodbhava trsna) which led him to perpetrate many sinful deeds.1 Apparently, it seems that the point raised in the beginning of chapter 273 is covered by chapters 273 and 274, after which the narrative is resumed in chapter 276, without requiring the details in chapter 275. The first verse in chapter 274 seems to connect it with the preceding two chapters by the introductory verses atraivodaharantimam. Of course, we do not have an introductory verse in which Yudhisthira poses a corollary question about any point enunciated by Bhisma in the preceding chapter, requesting him for clarification or elaboration. Hence, it may be argued that chapter 275 was not part of the original scheme of chapterisation, but was added subsequently. But, this is not a compelling argument. At many other places in the Santiparva the main speaker himself resumes the thread of the narrative and does not wait for any question by the second person. In this case, the concluding verses (33 to 39) in the chapter deal with the question of emancipation, thus connecting it with the subject-matter of chapter 273 and 274. Hence, it is quite likely that chapter 274 formed a part of the Moksadharmaparva of the Santiparva, along with chapters 273 and 274 right from the time of the early formulation of the Santiparva.1

Differences with Sāmkhyakārikā

P.Chakravarti4 points out important differences which the present narrative has with the orthodox version of Samkhya. First, Asita- Devala gives a prominent place to time (kala) in the process of creation, but orthodox Samkhya rejects time as a separate entity.

38. XII.1.4. 39. XIII.16.17-18 40. Op. cit., p. 45.

214 Retrieving Samkhya History Second, he speaks of eight elements, the five gross elements, time, entity and non-entity, of which entity and non-entity are not recognised in orthodox Samkhya. Third, Asita-Devala refers in an ascending order to the sense-organs, citta, manas, buddhi and ksetrajna, but the difference among citta, manas, buddhi is not made clear. Fourth, the present account ignores ahamkara and prakrti. Fifth, Asita-Devala speaks of eight organs of knowledge, power as the sixth organ of action, and the stage of Brahman as the final achievement. The failure of modern scholars to evaluate properly the present narration of Samkhya attributed to Asita-Devala is due to their over-obsession with the nature of Samkhya as found in the Samkhyakarika. The standardisation of the Samkhya system attempted by Isvarakrsna and the prestige and recognition accorded to his text threw other early Samkhya texts into the background, with the result that gradually they were lost to the world of scholarship. The Samkhyakarika, being the only available early text of Samkhya, created, in some quarters, a wrong impression that the Samkhya has changed little in its long course of history.41 Though the fallacies of such an opinion were exposed long back, the unacknowledged impression has persisted that the classical presentation of Samkhya by Isvarakrsna is the real Sāmkhya and that details of the Samkhya system given by him had been the distinguishing features of Sämkhya from the very beginning. Many scholars have attempted to trace the historical evolution of Samkhya up to the times of Isvarakrsna,"1 but often they have not overcome the presumption of a static and stereotyped Samkhya system. They

41. According to Garbe, Die Samkhya-Philosophie, Isvarakrsna presents the original form of Samkhya propounded first by Kapila as a complete and well-planned system which for more than a dozen centuries did not undergo any important change in its essential doctrines 42. For pre-Classical Samkhya see H. Oldenberg, "Zur Geschichte der Samkhya-Philosophie" in NGGW, 1918; A.B. Keith, The Samkhya System; F. Edgerton, The Meaning of Samkhya and Yoga" in AJP, 1924, pp. 1-46; The Beginning of Indian Philosophy. Prominent among those who refer to stages in the pre-Classical Samkhya are S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.I, pp. 208-73; E.A. T

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 215

ascribe to some Samkhya celebrities minor changes within the overall structure reconstructed by Isvarakrsna. In the pre- Isvarakrsna period it is only in the case of Pancasikha that some innovations have been identified. It has not been possible to delineate the different stages in the development of Samkhya up to the times of Isvarakrsna and to determine the contributions of different authors. The difficulty is primarily on account of the non- availability of the texts composed by the ancient authorities. We have a few stray quotations from some of the many Samkhya celebrities who preceded Isvarakrsna. The possibility of wide variations in the views of Samkhya scholars before Isvarakrsna is now generally admitted. These differences are not restricted to minor points of details, even on facts of fundamental importance there is a wide range of conflicting views. An analysis of the passages relating to the Samkhya system preserved in the Mahabharata also shows that the period covered by the Moksadharmaparva of Santiparva witnessed a very wide and popular currency of Samkhya system, which was not characterised by a fixed and rigid formulation of the principles, but instead embraced a rich variation of views. This sub-section clearly records that according to the learned people the Samkhya system possesses a vast literature,43 which is also recognised as having a high antiquity.4 In the Moksadharmaparva section itself there are many accounts of the Samkhya system, conflicting among themselves and differing from the principles propounded in the Samkhyakarika.

Johnston, Early Samkhya, and E. Frauwallner, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 217-321. For a critical evaluation of various historical studies of Samkhya, see Gal. Larson, Classical Samkhya, pp. 7-72 Larson (ibid., pp. 77-156) himsef traces the historical development of pre-Classical Samkhya through two broad stages of Ancient Speculations and Proto-Samkhya Speculations. 43 XI1.307.47. 44 XIL301.114

216 Retrieving Samkhya History Early Character of the Devala'Chapter It is clear from the text of the Devala chapter that Devala belonged to a period long before the composition of the Santiparva. In the opening verse of the chapter the interlocution between Narada and Asita-Devala is described as an old narrative (itihāsam purātanam). In the second verse Devala is described as old (urddham) and foremost among the wise people (buddhimatam varam). By the time of the composition of the chapter Devala had come to enjoy a long established reputation as one of the foremost thinkers whom Närada approached for seeking enlightenment. Another sighificant point about the narrative is that in describing the five great elements it refers to the authority of the bhata- cintakas.45 Likewise, Jater in verse 18 the jñanendriyas are enumerated on the authority of theadhyatma-cintakas. This would refer to a period when different schools of philosophy had not assumed their distinct personalities and separate existence. Different opinions were grouped ons the basis of the topics and characteristic opinion. The early Buddhist and Jain literature reflect such a situation.4& They refer to a plethora of philosophical and feligious views on various metaphysical entities and problem's. The traditional schools of Indian philosophy, cannot be distinctl řécognised in any òne of them. In the Devala chapter also we do hot find a reference to any system of philosophy other than the Samkhya. The philosophers are here grouped into two: those who deliberate about the elements or material world (bhutg-cintakas) and those who deliberate about spirit or self (adhyatma-cintakas). This shows that Devala and his exposition of Samkhya refer to an early period, Iong before the formalisation of philosophical views into distinct systems. Comparison with the Devaladharmasūtra Our effort to determine the authenticity of the views of Devala in 45. Verse 4. 46. Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, pp. 238ff; B.M. Barua, History of Pre- Buddhist Indian Philosophy; R.N. Mehta, Pre-Buddhist India, pp. 332ff; G.C. Pande, Origin of Buddhism, pp. 338ff.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahābharata 217

the Devala chapter is bulked down by the absence of the original text composed by Devala. We know,47 on the authority of Sankara,48 the great Advaita philosopher, that Deyala had composed, a Dharmasutra text in which he had adopted the Samkhya philosophy, Aparārka, in his commentary ón the Ydjnavalkya-smŕti, and Laksmidhara, in his Krtyakalpataru, reproduce, many passages which deal with several aspects of Samkhya and Yoga. This confirms the genuineness of the tradition of Samkhya principles being expounded by Devala. But the views expressed in the Devala chapter do not have parallels in the extracts from the Devaladharmasūtra.49There is no resemblance between the two sources in terms of style, sentences or phrases. We cannot trace any significant similarity in the ideas expressed in them. On the contrary, there is a wide divergence of opinion on important points .. The new features in the ideas of the .---- Devala chapter, pointed out by P. Chakravarti,, which are not known to occur in any known Samkhya work, are conspicuous by their absence in the available passages of the Devaladharmasütra. We cannot take shelter under the pretext that, the full text of the original Devaladharmasutra being not available, there is a possibility of the new features occurring in its portions which have been' lost." The main points in the Samkhya views of Devala are adequately'covered in the available extracts. We do not rule'out the possibilìty that some lost passages gave à morè detäiled exposition of some points. But, in the present case, it is not a question of minor variations in details in the two accounts of Devala's views.'Some of the points discussed in the' Devala chapter are covefed in the available extracts, but the treatment in the two sources shows wide differences.

47 .. See our article "Was there a Devaladharmasutra?" in the Journal of the Ganganath Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth, Vol. XXXVII, pp. 189-97. 48. On Vedāntrasütra, I.4.28. .. 49. See infra chapter 12.

218 Retrieving Samkhya History Kala in the Devala Chapter Kala does not find any place in the account in the Devaladharmasütra, but in the Devala chapter it has an important role. Kala is among the six great elements. It is kala, which moved by bhäva, creates creatures from the five great elements. No doubt, in the classical Samkhya kala has not been assigned an important position. But, this is not a valid ground for suspecting the authenticity of the Devala chapter. On the contrary it goes to establish that the chapter reflects an early stage in the evolution of Samkhya. The Śvetasvatara Upanisad, which is known to contain an early exposition of the Samkhya system, refers to seven main topics, of which kala is the first, the remaining six being svabhava, niyati. yadrccha, bhūtas, yoni, and purusa. This Upanisad says that some people designated prakrti as kala and condemns them as being illusioned. The account of kala in the Devala chapter is very near the description of kala in the Svetasvatara Upanisad, Possibly this account of kala was current in the period before the composition of this Upanisad; later kala came to be gradually dropped from the Samkhya scheme. The Mahabharata and some Puranas, in their account of Samkhya, record echoes of the early Samkhya formulation with kala occupying a prominent position.52 In one account in the Mahabharata53 the order of evolution in the reverse order isprthivi, āp, tejas, pavana, uyoma, manas, buddhi, kala, and Vişnu (purușa). Here käla is mentioned in place of prakrti. Another account in the Mahabharata has prakrti in place of kala of the earlier account.14 But, here kala is described as being instrumental in the transformation of the tattvas." The account, narrated by Sulabha to Janaka, mentions kala as the twentieth guna which is the cause 50. 1.2 51. VI.1 52 Hari Shankar Joshi, Samkhya-yoga darsana ka jirnoddhara, pp. 211- 21. 53. XII.206.10-12 54. XII 210.25-9 55. XII211.11.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 219

of the creation and dissolution of beings." The account in the Kūrma Purāņa describes kala as eternal and without a beginning; it indicates the connection between two events."7 In this narrative, in the order of evolution kala, pradhana and purușa are the first to issue out of avyakta.M The Visnu Purana contains an account in which Parasara instructs Maitreya. Here kala is used for purusa as it stands aloof when prakrti is in the state of equilibrium of gunas.1 Kala occurs in two separate accounts in the Bhagavata Purana. In one, kala is mentioned as the twenty-fifth tattva.60 It is kala which imparts cesta to prakrti in its state of equilibrium."1 Cesta here signifies commotion or the urge towards creation. The second account in the Bhagavata Purana mentions several new tattvas: dravya, karma, kāla, svabhāva, jiva and brahma (Vasudeva).2 It further says that the commotion in the equilibrium of gunas is caused by kāla.53 Thus, in Samkhya there was an early tradition about kala." Though it ceased to be fashionable, especially after the classical formulation of Samkhya, its memory survived in the Mahabharata and Puranas. In this early tradition kala was included in the list of tattvas sometimes standing for prakrti and sometimes signifying purusa who sets into motion the process of evolution by affecting

56 XI1.320.110. 57 II.3.6 58 II.3.1. 59 Visnu Purana, I.2.27. 60 III.16.26. 61 Ibid., III.26.17. 62 II.5.14. 63 Ibid., II.6.22 64 Samkhyapravacanasütra, 1.12 describes kala as being all-pervading and eternal (oyapino hityasya) and related to all purusas (sarvasambhandhat). Though some scholars take it to be an ancient text composed by Kapila himself or by Pancaéikha, modern scholars generally dismiss it as a later text.

220 Retrieving Samkhya History the equilibrium of gunas characterising prakrti. This is quite in line with the Devala chapter, wherein kala is included in the list of tattuas and is described as starting the process of creation. It is not unlikely that the Samkhyakarika itself contained a reference to the high position enjoyed by kala in the earlier accounts of the Samkhya. B.G. Tilak has reconstructed the missing verse in the original set of seventy verses forming the Samkhyakārika.65 It refers to Isvara, kala and svabhava being mentioned by different groups of earlier thinkers. Possibly later, when the Samkhya philosophy was standardised and got fixed, this verse was dropped because it pronounced views which them were considered to be totally opposed to Samkhya. Here it may be noted that though verse 9 of the Devala chapter mentions the five great elements kala, bhava and abhava as the eight elements, (bhūtani), which are eternal (sasvatani) in the creation and dissolution of the creatures, in verse 6 it names only six of them: the five elements and kala. We do not find anything parallel to this in the Devaladharmasutra. But there is a case for this being based on an earlier genuine tradition. Before the categories in Samkhya were standardised as twenty-four or twenty-five there were varying accounts about their number and names. Sometimes the purpose or context of enumeration was an important consideration. Thus, Hiranyaksa, in propounding his view that a creature as also his diseases originate from six dhatus, points out that earlier Samkhya teachers held that a creature is the combination of six dhatus. From the context it seems that the six dhatus comprised of the five bhutas and atman. Of course, here we have atman in place of kala of the Devala chapter. This difference can possibly be explained through the peculiar context of the two cases.

65. Sanskrit Research, vol. 1, pp. 107-17 cited by Chakravartti,op.cit.,pp. 156-7: karanan lśvaram eke bruvate kalam pare suabhdvam va l prajah katham nirgunata uyaktah kalah svabhavaśca lI 66 Caraka, Sûtra, 25.15.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 221

Thus, it is quite likely that the Devala chapter actually records an early view attributed to Devala.7

Bala in the Devala Chapter The inclusion of bala as the sixth organ of action does not affect the genuineness of the Samkhya account in the Devala chapter."5 No doubt the extracts from the Devaladharmasutra do not have any matching reference. But in the Santiparva chapter 219, which purports to record the view of Pancasikha, one of the earliest Samkhya teachers, we have an identical enumeration of six organs of action, bala being the sixth.69

Nature of Presentation in the Santiparva Chapters In evaluating the authenticity of the Devala chapter we must keep in mind the nature of the epic text and its style of presenting the views of others. The Mahabharata claims to be encyclopaedic in character,70 but it is not in the form of a digest. It does not collect passages as quotations from other texts. Though, at many places, it presents the view of sages and other important persons as their utterances (uvaca), clearly the presentation is not in their original words, having a uniform format, style and metre. The author of the Santiparva chapters has presented the views of others in his own words, accommodating them in his style and planning of chapters. Naturally there is bound to occur considerable changes in the formal expression of the views.

Standardisation of Samkhya The standardisation of Samkhya philosophy by Iśvarakrsna has

67. The reading in the Critical Edition is dtmapracoditah. This would suggest that for the author of the Devala chapter it is atman and not kala which is important here. We may also note the use of the term rasi in both the texts in this context. 68 Verse 22. 69. Mbh., XII 219-20. 70 Ibid., XVIII.5,50

222 Retrieving Samkhya History been the greatest obstacle in the way of a proper understanding of the historical evaluation of the Samkhya system. It pushed into oblivion earlier presentations of the Samkhya principles. Even before Isvarakrsna some other thinkers tried to introduce order and uniformity in the existing versions of Samkhya principles. Though we cannot determine all these stages and their significant features, there are traces of attempts at systematisation that preceded Iśvarakrsna.71 In the Samkhyakarika Isvarakrsna himself indicates that his was not the first and only attempt at systematisation of the Samkhya philosophy. His brief reference7 to the early history of the transmission of Samkhya notes that Pancasikha expanded or modified that tantra (tena ca bahudha krtam tantram). We can say, on the basis of this succinct remark, that Pancasikha reorganised the Samkhya system. His contribution was either in the form of an elaboration of the Samkhya philosophy or the preparation of a detailed text. Pancasikha gave a definite shape and order to the Sämkhya principles as its first systematiser. Śankara, the author of the Jayamangala commentary on the Samkhyakārika, quotes samgrahakāra as enumerating ten mülikarthas in a verse.7 This samgrahakara was evidently a Samkhya author who systematised the Samkhya philosophy and codified it.74 He possibly introduced an element of standardisation. In the Gita,75 in the beginning of the concluding chapter, five causes indispensable for the completion of all sorts of actions are referred to on the authority of Samkhya. P. Chakravarti36 takes the word krtanta to mean 'established conclusion' and infers that Samkhya was systematised before the composition of the Gita.

71. See infra, chapter 19. 72. Kārikas, 69-71. 73. On kārika, 51 74. The Mulikarthas in Samkhya", Indian Historical Review, Vol pp. 75 XVIII.13. 76 Op. cit., p. 56.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 223

The close similarity in the presentation of Samkhya in three different sets of chapters in the Santiparva7 has led Frauwallner7 to infer that all these are different versions of one and the same text. We may suggest that before the time of the composition of the Moksadharmaparva a certain amount of standardisation in the formulation of Samkhya" had been achieved, which served as the basis for the accounts in the three sets of chapters.

Systematisation of Sämkhya in the Moksadharmaparva The Devala chapter is also to be placed in the phase of systematisation of Samkhya as recorded in the Moksadharmaparva. Frauwallner did not notice that though the Devala chapter does not have passages identical with the Ur-text for the three sets of chapters, the presentation of Samkhya in this chapter resembles the arrangement in the Ur-text. Frauwallner" reconstructs the structure of the Ur-text. 'It begins with the description of the elements, their qualities and the formulation of beings or principles out of the elements. In the second place, there follows a description of the sense-organs and the psychical organs and the role of the most important among them, of knowledge (buddhih) is described at great length. With that is joined easily the theory of the states (bhavah) of knowledge on which the bondage of the soul depends. That leads again to the description of bondage, to the mention of release through the knowledge of the soul and to the description of the released. Then the text once more harks back to the character

77. Mahábharata, XII.194; XII.247-9; XII.287 (=285 of Gita edn.). 78. History of Indian Philosophy, Vol, I, p. 227. Hopkins, op. cit., pp. 157-62, also had noted that they are based on one Samkhya text. 79 Frauwallner, op. cit., p. 228 remarks: 'Nothing can be gathered with regard to the origin and the period of origin of these texts', But, he points out that the original text'must have enjoyed special esteem and unusual dissemination' (ibid.) and that the great deviations of these versions give 'an evident impression of their having led a separate existence for a long time before they were taken into the great collection of the Moksadharma' (ibid., p. 227). 80. History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I., p. 230.

224 Retrieving Samkhya History ofreleasing knowledge and ends resundingly with a comparatively lengthy description of release, the end being underlined or distinguished effectively with a change in metre.' The Devala chapter has the same broad outline. Possibly the systematisation of Samkhya, attempted sometime before the Moksadharmaparva, was adopted by some Samkhya scholars in the subsequent period. In this process, it was natural that many individual features and details of the views were ironed out to conform to the plan of the systematiser. We have independent testimony to the fact that Devala systematised and codified the Samkhya philosophy. In one extract from the Devaladharmasutra,8! there is an introductory remark that it has abridged the voluminous and profound texts, composed earlier on Samkhya and Yoga and presented with arguments and proper arrangement, and has described them according to topies. Thus, Devala in his Dharmasutra attempted in his own way a codification of the Samkhya system. Differences with the Devaladharmasūtra But the question still remains: how to explain the differences between the Mahabharata version of Devala's views and the account of the Samkhya system in the Devaladharmasūtra. We offer an explanation: Devala was an ancient sage. He was respected for his views on various philosophical problems. He was recognised as an early Samkhya authority. But, in the formative period in the history of Samkhya, his views had not assumed the form of a distinct treatise. Some amount of standardisation was introduced by Pancasikha. The Ur-text in the Moksadharmaparva, was either part of the process of systematisation started by Pancasikha or synchronised with it. One cannot be dogmatic about the chronological relationship between Pancasikha's writings and the Ur-text in the Moksadharmaparva. Possibly the two were not far removed in time from one another. It is not unlikely that, as a result of the influence of the systematisation, some features of the Samkhya of Devala 81. Aparārka on Yājñavalkya, Průyaścitta, 109.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 225

were ironed out. The Mahabharata chapter could not give a complete account of the views of Devala; it followed the outline laid down by the systematisation in the Ur-text. When the Devaladharmasutra was composed, its author, in presenting the Samkhya system, did not adopt Devala's views as recorded in the Mahabharata. There can be two explanations of his doing so. First, the Santiparva (or the Moksadharmaparva) of the Mahabharata, with its present chapters, was possibly not available to the author of the Devaladharmasutra. The composition of the Devaladharmasutra is to be placed long before that of the Santiparva of the Mahabharata. Another explanation can be that the author of the Devaladharmasutra did not consider the Santiparva chapter to represent fully and faithfully Samkhya views of the Devala. The difference between the two accounts possibly originated from their differing aims and scopes. Whereas the Devala chapter presents Devala's views on Samkhya within the framework of the systematisation in the Ur-text in the Santiparva, the Devaladharmasütra records briefly the important details in the Samkhya philosophy. The first is characterised by a definite orientation and emphasis, whereas the second gives a complete account of Samkhya as it had come to be systematised by that time.

Authenticity of Devala Chapter - Points of Contact with the Devaladharmasūtra

A sympathetic analysis of the Devala chapter would indicate certain points of contact with the Devaladharmasûtra, particularly when contrasted with the Samkhyakarika. First, the original intention of the Devala chapter was to describe the creation and dissolution of the elements (bhūtanam prabhavapyayam) from which this world of mobile and immobile things is created and in which the elements are merged at the time of dissolution (pralaya).51 82 But this may create another problem. If the Devaladharmasatra had been composed before the Santiparva assumed its present form, then we will have to explain why the author of the Santiparva did not follow the Devaladharmasütra in expounding Devala's Samkhya. 83. Verses 2-3.

222 Retrieving Samkhya History been the greatest obstacle in the way of a proper understanding of the historical evaluation of the Samkhya system. It pushed into oblivion earlier presentations of the Samkhya principles, Even before Isvarakrsna some other thinkers tried to introduce order and uniformity in the existing versions of Samkhya principles. Though we cannot determine all these stages and their significant features, there are traces of attempts at systematisation that preceded Isvarakrsņa."1 In the Samkhyakarika Isvarakrsna himself indicates that his was not the first and only attempt at systematisation of the Samkhya philosophy. His brief reference72 to the early history of the transmission of Samkhya notes that Pancasikha expanded or modified that tantra (tena ca bahudha krtam tantram). We can say, on the basis of this succinet remark, that Pancasikha reorganised the Samkhya system. His contribution was either in the form of an elaboration of the Samkhya philosophy or the preparation of a detailed text. Pancasikha gave a definite shape and order to the Samkhya principles as its first systematiser. Sankara, the author of the Jayamangala commentary on the Sāmkhyakārika, quotes samgrahakāra as enumerating ten mūlikārthas in a verse.73 This samgrahakara was evidently a Samkhya author who systematised the Samkhya philosophy and codified it,74 He possibly introduced an element of standardisation. In the Gita,"5 in the beginning of the concluding chapter, five causes indispensable for the completion of all sorts of actions are referred to on the authority of Samkhya. P. Chakravarti7 takes the word krtanta to mean 'established conclusion' and infers that Samkhya was systematised before the composition of the Gita.

71. See infra, chapter 19. 72 Kārikas, 69-71 73. On karika, 51 74 "The Molikarthas in Samkhya", Indian Historical Reviewe, Vol. pp. 75. XVIII.13. 76. Op. cit., p. 56

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 223

The close similarity in the presentation of Samkhya in three different sets of chapters in the Santiparva" has led Frauwallner7 to infer that all these are different versions of one and the same text. We may suggest that before the time of the composition of the Moksadharmaparva a certain amount of standardisation in the formulation of Samkhya7 had been achieved, which served as the basis for the accounts in the three sets of chapters.

Systematisation of Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva

The Devala chapter is also to be placed in the phase ofsystematisation of Samkhya as recorded in the Moksadharmaparva. Frauwallner did not notice that though the Devala chapter does not have passages identical with the Ur-text for the three sets of chapters, the presentation of Samkhya in this chapter resembles the arrangement in the Ur-text. Frauwallner reconstructs the structure of the Ur-text. It begins with the description of the elements, their qualities and the formulation of beings or principles out of the elements. In the second place, there follows a description of the sense-organs and the psychical organs and the role of the most important among them, of knowledge (buddhih) is described at great length. With that is joined easily the theory of the states (bhavah) of knowledge on which the bondage of the soul depends. That leads again to the description of bondage, to the mention of release through the knowledge of the soul and to the description of the released. Then the text once more harks back to the character

77. Mahabharata, XII.194; XII.247-9; XII.287 (= 285 of Gita edn.). 78 History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 227. Hopkins, op.cit., pp. 157-62, also had noted that they are based on one Samkhya text. 79 Frauwallner, op. cit., p. 228 remarks: Nothing can be gathered with regard to the origin and the period of origin of these texts'. But, he pointa out that the original text'must have enjoyed special esteem and onusual dissemination" (ibid.) and that the great deviations of these versions give 'an evident impression of their having led a separate existence for a long time before they were taken into the great collection of the Moksadharma' (ibid., p. 227) 80. History of Indian Philosophy, Val. L, p. 230.

224 Retrieving Samkhya History of releasing knowledge and ends resundingly with a comparatively lengthy description of release, the end being underlined or distinguished effectively with a change in metre.' The Devala chapter has the same broad outline. Possibly the systematisation of Samkhya, attempted sometime before the Moksadharmaparva, was adopted by some Samkhya scholars in the subsequent period. In this process, it was natural that many individual features and details of the views were ironed out to conform to the plan of the systematiser. We have independent testimony to the fact that Devala systematised and codified the Samkhya philosophy. In one extract from the Devaladharmasutra,"1 there is an introductory remark that it has abridged the voluminous and profound texts, composed earlier on Samkhya and Yoga and presented with arguments and proper arrangement, and has described them according to topics. Thus, Devala in his Dharmasutra attempted in his own way a codification of the Samkhya system. Differences with the Devaladharmasūtra But the question still remains: how to explain the differences between the Mahabharata version of Devala's views and the account of the Samkhya system in the Devaladharmasutra. We offer an explanation: Devala was an ancient sage. He was respected for his views on various philosophical problems. He was recognised as an early Samkhya authority. But, in the formative period in the history of Samkhya, his views had not assumed the form of a distinct treatise. Some amount of standardisation was introduced by Pancasikha. The Ur-text in the Moksadharmaparva, was either part of the process of systematisation started by Pancasikha or synchronised with it. One cannot be dogmatic about the chronological relationship between Pancasikha's writings and the Ur-text in the Moksadharmaparva. Possibly the two were not far removed in time from one another. It is not unlikely that, as a result of the influence of the systematisation, some features of the Samkhya of Devala 81. Aparārka on Yájñavalkya, Prayascitta, 109.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 225

were ironed out. The Mahabharata chapter could not give a complete account of the views of Devala; it followed the outline laid down by the systematisation in the Ur-text. When the Devaladharmasutra was composed, its author, in presenting the Samkhya system, did not adopt Devala's views as recorded in the Mahabharata. There can be two explanations ofhis doing so. First, the Santiparva (or the Moksadharmaparva) of the Mahabharata, with its present chapters, was possibly not available to the author of the Devaladharmasutra. The composition of the Devaladharmasutra is to be placed long before that of the Santiparva of the Mahabharata." Another explanation can be that the author of the Devaladharmasutra did not consider the Santiparva chapter to represent fully and faithfully Samkhya views of the Devala. The difference between the two accounts possibly originated from their differing aims and scopes. Whereas the Devala chapter presents Devala's views on Samkhya within the framework of the systematisation in the Ur-text in the Santiparva, the Devaladharmasütra records briefly the important details in the Samkhya philosophy. The first is characterised by a definite orientation and emphasis, whereas the second gives a complete account of Samkhya as it had come to be systematised by that time. Authenticity of Devala Chapter - Points of Contact with the Devaladharmasūtra A sympathetic analysis of the Devala chapter would indicate certain points of contact with the Devaladharmasutra, particularly when contrasted with the Samkhyakarika. First, the original intention of the Devala chapter was to describe the creation and dissolution of the elements (bhūtanam prabhavapyayam) from which this world of mobile and immobile things is created and in which the elements are merged at the time of dissolution (pralaya). 82 But this may create another problem. If the Devaladharmasatra had been composed before the Santiparva assumed its present form, then we will have to eaplain why the author of the Santiparva did not follow the Devaladharmasatra in expounding Devala's Samkhya. 83 Verses 2-3.

226 Retrieving Samkhya History In the original Devaladharmasutra also this topic was specifically described. In the passages from the Devaladharmasutra in the KrtyakalpataruM we have an account of the order of creation (utpatti-krama). The parallel quotation in Aparârka refers to both the order of creation (utpatti-krama) and the order of dissolution (apyaya-krama). The Samkhyakarika" refers to the emergence of mahat from praurti and of ahamkara from mahat and then to the two-fold creation (dvividhah sargah) from ahamkara: the group of eleven (manas and ten organs) and the five tanmatras (subtle elements). There is no reference to the order of dissolution." Incidentally it may be noted that like the Devala-dharmasutra, the Devala chapter also uses the word apyaya for dissolution. Second, the Devala chapter has very distinctive views on emancipation and other related points." It says that urged by the punya (merits) and papa (sins) the ksetrin enters the body resulting from his acts. Urged on by kala, it migrates from one body to another. The enlightened ones, endowed with certainty ofknowledge, are not given to griefover this; but the fools, who envisage permanent relationship, indulge in grief. The dehi is not related to another, nor any one belongs to him; he alone is eternal and, when in the body, he is subject to happiness and misery. He is never born, nor does hem ever die. After leaving this body, sometimes he attains the highest end (paramam gatim). Through the exhaustion of karma he overcomes the body, which results from merit and sin, and, after giving up the body, attains to Brahma (brahmatvam upagacchati). Upon the exhaustion of merit and sin, he achieves the highest end by attaining the status of Brahma (brahmabhave param gatim). Here the description of the dehi and the reference to the attainment of brahmatva or brahma-bhava as the highest end are 84. Moksa-kanda, p. 101. 85 Karikas, 22-4 86 Karikd 69 says that the secret knowledge expounded by the great sage (Kapila/ analyses the existence, origin and termination of all beings (athityutpattipralaya/ı), 87 Verses, 33-39.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 227

not in conformity with the position generally taken in Samkhya. One explanation can be that here Samkhya has an overcoating of Vedanta. The resemblance with the ideas propounded in the Gita is too apparent to require any detailed exposition. But, similar views are found in many other chapters of the Moksadharmaparva section and are attributed to more than one thinker. This general agreement may reflect the views accepted by the author of the concerned chapters or else it was generally accepted view in that particular stage in the history of Indian philosophical thought. We can particularise the explanation. The ideas in the Devala chapter reflect the views of Samkhya-Yoga of those times. In view of the differences in the opinion of modern scholars about the history of the Samkhya and Yoga systems, particularly their relationship, we will not invlove ourselves into a discussion whether the Devala chapter belongs to the period which witnessed attempts at the fusion of the two systems or to the period when there was an attempt to assert the individuality of the Samkhya against the current practice of bracketing it with Yoga. The synthesis of Samkhya principles with Yoga ideas is the characteristic feature of the Devala chapter. The chapter faithfully projects this characteristic of the philosophy propounded by Devala.8% We are fortunate in having in the extracts from the Devala- dharmasutra an outline of its section of Samkhya-Yoga, at places with the fullest details. U.V. Shastri" has collected only prose passages from the Devaladharmasutra, as quoted by Apararka" and Laksmidhara."

88 Mahabharata, XII.229 gives an account of the teachings which Devala is said to have received from his teacher Jaiglsavya. These teachings have much in common with the verses in the Devala chapter which we are discussing here. This would be another argument in favour of the authenticity of the views attributed to Devala in the Devala chapter 89 Samkhyadaršana ka itihasa, pp. 600-5. 90 On Yajnaualkyasmrti, Prāyascitta, 109 91 Krtyakalpataru, Mokşa-kānda, pp., 7,8, 21, 49, 50, 84, 100f. 109, 124. 165, 168, 170, 173, 174, 181, 212, 216.

228 Retrieving Samkhya History Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 229

But, the original text contained verses as well." In the Moksa- Isvarakrsna. We know that an earlier tradition enumerated sixty kånda of the Krtyakalpataru itself we have many verses, sometimes items (sasthitantra) as constituting Samkhya. The quotations from in the form of a long connected quotation. As a illustration of verses the Devaladharmasutra reflect an intermediary stage when the containing ideas similar to those of the Devala chapter referring to enumeration of categories was still in a fluid state. The number of the nature of dehi and to brahmatva as the highest aim we may categories as mentioned in the Devala chapter is not found here. mention quotations from the Devaladharmasutra on arista and Instead Samkhya is defined in terms of the twenty-five tattvas.102 utkranti.93 But in enumerating the tattvas the groupings do not clearly add to Third, in the Devala chapter there is no specific reference to the the number twenty-five. Actually they are presented in such a number of categories being twenty-four or twenty-five. First among manner that they can lead to different totals. Moreover, the eight eternal elements are included the five great elements,35 Dharmasutra enumerated fifty pratyayas along with ten kāla, bhava and abhava. Later we have a reference to seventeen mülikarthas which form the sixty elements of the sasthitantra. gunas consisting of the indriyas and the bhavas." In earlier verses Fourth, another notable points about the account of Samkhya the indriyas are enumerated as being fourteen (eight jnanedriyas in the Devala chapter is the enumeration of jnanendriyas as being -cakşus, nāsika, karna, tvac, jihva, citta, manas and buddhi" and eight, namely, five organs, citta, manas and buddhi.109 No other six karmendriyas- pāņi, pāda, pāyu, mehana, mukha and bala).3 Samkhya text gives a parallel account of the jnanendriyas. The The second line of the verse referring to seventeen gunas introduces Samkhyakarika mentions the buddhindriyas (organs of dehi as the eighteenth.9 In the following verse the gunas, including ascertainment or sense-organs) as being eye, ear, nose, tongue and the saririn, are mentioned as being nineteen.100 The immediately skin.10 But the Devala chapter is not in total disagreement with the following line increases the number to twenty by adding ūsma (heat).10 It is apparent that the number of categories had not been generally accepted Samkhya stand. In later Samkhya accounts it was possibly retained in a slightly modified form. The rigidly fixed as twenty-five. This would refer to a time long before Samkhyakarika105 speaks ofthirteen karanas(instruments), grouped the standardisation introduced by Isvarakrsna. The number of into two, antahkaranas (internal organs) and bāhya (external) categories was fixed as twenty-five quite sometime before karanas. The internal organs are buddhi, ahamkara and manas, whereas the ten external organs include five sense-organs and the 92. Our reconstruction of the Devaladharmasatra is to appear shortly five organs of action. The karanas, internal and external, are 93. Our article, "Devala on Aristas", in Indological Studies, Prof. D.C. bracketed because they have similar or complementary functions to Sircar Commemoration Volume, (ed. by S.K. Maity and V. Thakur), perform. Karika 27 says that manas (mind) is of the nature of both pp 141-2. sense-organs and organs of action. The mind is characterised by the 94 Verse 9 function of samkalpa (reflection). It is designated as an indriya 95. Ibid., verse 7. because it has a function similar to those of the senses (indriyam ca 96 Verse 28. sadharmyat). The function of all the thirteen karanas is described 97. Verses 12 and 18 98. Verses 19 and 22. 102. Aparārka on Yajñavalkya, Prāyaécitta 109; Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, 99 Verse 28 p. 100. 100. Verse 30 -ekasca dasa castau ca gunh saha saririna. But the break- 103. Verse 18. up of the gunas into three groups of one, ten and eight is not clear. 104. Karika, 26. See also kārikā, 34. 101 Verse 31. 105. Karikās, 32-5

230 Retrieving Samkhya History as being seizing, holding and manifesting (aharanadharana- prakasakaram).105 One important difference between the internal and external karanas is that whereas the external karanas function in present time, the internal karanas function in all the three times (past, present and future),1 The external organs are known as the context (or sphere) of the three internal karanas (bahyam trayasya vişayākhyam)." Karikas 34 and 35, read together, bring out how the functions of the internal karanas are complementary to those of the external karanas. Of the two, the sense-organs and the organs of action, the functions of the sense-organs are more analogous to those of three internal organs. Whereas the sense-organs perform the basic work of mere sensing, the buddhi and other internal karanas comprehend all the objects; the three internal karanas are the chamberlain, whereas the remaining ten are the doors." In the light of this it will not be incongruous to postulate that in an earlier account of Samkhya the three internal karanas were grouped with the five external sense-organs and were designated as eight jnānedriyas. The account in the Devaladharmasutra is not much different from that in the Samkhyakarika. It also refers to the classification under buddhindriyas and karmendriyas and then mentions the ten indriyas, buddhi, ahamkāra and manas as karanas, divided into two: antahkaranas and bahişkaranas.110 The Yuktidtpika quotes the opinion of the followers of Vrsagana who accept only buddhi as an antahkarana and thus maintain that the karanas are eleven in number .! Thus, it would seem that the final acceptance of buddhi, ahamkara and manas as three antahkaranas was the result of a long process and that at some intermediate stage only buddhi was admitted as a karana. The 106. Kârikā, 32 107. Karikā, 33 108 Tbid 109. Kārikā, 35. 110. Aparärka on Yajnavalkya, Prayascitta, 109; Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p. 101. 111 Page 132. It further records that Pancadhikarana and some others regard the number to be ten only.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 231

Samkhyakarika makes a special mention only of manas (and not buddhi and ahamkara) as an indriya. Possibly this represents the survival of an earlier view parallel to that of Varsaganyas. Thus, the ascription of the account of jnanendriyas to Devala in the Mahabharata chapter may be based on a genuine earlier tradition.

Musalagaonkar's Late Date for Devala G.S. Musalagaonkar117 takes note of both the Devala chapter in the Mahabharata and the extracts from Devala in Apararka. But, he is not worried about the evident conflict in the two accounts. He makes no attempt to reconcile them. He takes them both to be genuine accounts of the enunciation of Samkhya philosophy by Devala. He is concerned about the chronological compatibility. He does not suggest any definite date which may satisfy the requirements of the two cases, but seems to argue in favour of a date around the third century of the Christian era. He refers to Kane who mentions Devala as being contemporary of Brhaspati and Katyāyana and hence belonging to the period between the fourth and sixth centuries.113 To reconcile this date with the date of the Devala chapter Musalagaonkar labours to lower down the date of Devala associated with the Mahabharata. U.V. Shastri places Devala before the second century Bc by which date the Mahabharata, with many references to Devala, is supposed to have received its present form. To counter it Musalagoanker refers to the view of Winternitz that the Mahabharata received its final form in the fourth century AD .!! 4 Likewise, he interprets the reference in the Matharaurtti11to Devala and others (prabhrti) preceding Isvarakrsna in the History

112. Samkhya-tattua-kaumudt, Introduction, pp. 46-7 113. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I,(1stedn.)pp. 121, 215(= 2nd edn. 284 502). It is not clear bow Musalagaonkar equates it with the third century of the Vikrama era. Kane, op. cit., (2nd edn.), p. 488 places Brhaspati between AD 200 and 400. 114, History of Indian Literature, pp. 465-75. 115 On Samkhyakarika, 12 - kapiladasurina praptamidam janam i tatah pancasikhena, tasmat bhargavolakavalmtkiharita- devaloprabhrti-nagatam I1

232 Retrieving Samkhya History of Samkhya to suggest that Devala came before Isvarakrsna and not to indicate a very ancient date for him. But, the chronological gap remains. Whatever date we may accept for the Moksadharmaparva section, Devala and his version of Samkhya in it have to be placed long before its composition.116 Likewise, the Samkhya tradition given by the Matharaurtti includes Devala in the list of famous sages, Bhargava, Ulūka, Vālmīki, Harita and others, quite distinct from reputed Samkhya authorities Kapila, Āsuri and Pancasikha. Thus, Mathara evidently envisages that Devala was quite removed from the time of Isvarakrsna. Here again even the most recent date suggested for Isvarakrsna will ill suit the date which Kane suggests for Devala. Actually, in fixing the date for Devala, Kane has been over cautious. On the ground that Devala verses on partition, inheritance and women's rights over stridhana are cited by Apararka and the Smrticandrika, he places Devala, the jurist, in the period of the great jurists Brhaspati and Katyayana. But, this is only the lower limit inferred from the fact that uyavahara verses of Devala are quoted by Aparärka and the Smrticandrika and does not preclude an earlier date for Devala, the jurist. In this connexion the important point is that the Samkhya views of Devala are found in the Devaladharmasutra. This fact was noticed by Sankara, the great Advaita philosoher, and is corroborated by actual sütra passages on Samkhya quoted by Apararka and Laksmidhara from Devala. Kane had not recognised the possibility of the existence of a Devaladharmasutra when the first edition of the first volume of his History of Dharmasastra was published. In the second edition Kane argues for two Devala texts: a Devalasmrti in verses and a Devaladharmasutra.117 According to him, this Dharmasûtra'dealt with most of the topics that are discussed in the Dharmasūtras of Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, Hārita and others and also some matters in detail such as Samkhya and

116. See supra, und 'Asita-Devala and Devala' section. 117. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I, 2nd edn., p. 283.

Asita-Devala Chapter in the Mahabharata 233

Yoga'."Hence for considering the Samkhya views of Devala found in the Santiparva the relevant text is the Devaladharmasutra and not the Devalasmrti. The probable date for the Devaladharmasutra, which also contains an account of Samkhya, will not violently clash with the generally accepted date for the Santiparva. The Devala chapter in the Mahabharata will roughly belong to this time-bracket. But, it is quite likely that it preserves memories of an earlier period.

Devala in History

The Brahmanical tradition at places glorifies Devala into a mythological sage, but there is no doubt that he was a historical person and belonged to an early period of Indian history .! He is mentioned alike in the Jain, Buddhist and Brahmanical sources, which, at times, show points of similarity. As we have pointed out above, Sankara mentions him as the author of a Dharmasutra. The Matharaurtti refers to him as a Samkhya philosopher. The Gita names him as a revered sage. The Mahabhārata refers to him at many places in Ādi, Sabhā, Šalya, Santi and Anusasana parvas. In the epic his dialogues with both Narada and Jaigișavya are given and some details about his personal life are recorded. The Buddhist tradition refers to him as being senior to the Buddha. The Asvalayanasutta in the Maijhima-nikaya17 mentions him as a reversed sage. Buddhaghosa refers to him as a Bodhisattva.121 Asita-Devala was known to the authors of the Isibhasiyaim1

118 History of Dharmasastra, Vol.I, Znd edn., p. 282 119. Sagarmal Jain, Rsibhasita: eka adhyayana, pp: 27-30. 120. Vol II, p 154 121 Mahavamsa, II785. 122 Adhyayana, 3

234 Retrieving Samkhya History and Suyagada.1" The Isimandala also mentions him in gatha no.124 The Rsimandala-urtti, belonging to the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries, gives a detailed account of his life. The Jain tradition, referring to his status as a householder in his early life, confirms the account in the Salyaparva, chapter 50 of the Mahabharata before he met Jaigisavya. The Mahabharata account about the dialogue between Narada and Devala receives an interesting confirmation from the Indriyajataka which mentions Narada as a younger brother of Devala whom the latter preaches. The Isibhasiyaim also seems to indicate the contemporaneity of Narada and Devala, when it includes them as the first and thirdrsis in its collection of the views of fourty-five rsis. The inclusion of Devala in the Isibhasiyaim indicates that he belonged to a much earlier time than the Isibhasiyaim, whose composition is placed between the fifth and third centuries BC, All this indicates that Devala was a historical person, who was a senior contemporary of Buddha and, possibly, also of Mahavira. He was ajunior contemporary of Jaigisavya, a disciple of Pancasikha. His association with Narada will also favour his placement in earlier times. For Devala a date around 650 Bc may not be wide off the mark. But, this does not mean that all the texts claiming to record his views were also of this date. We do not have the original exposition made by Devala, though the relevant secondary sources may be based on it. These are to be dated separately and independently.

123. 1.1.3,4. 124. Sagarmal Jain, op. cut., p. 9.

12

Samkhya in the Dharmasutras - The Devaladharmasūtra

Introduction

THE Matharaurtti' on the Samkhyakarika includes the name of Devala in the teacher-student lineage between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna. The Mahabharata provides confirmation of the Samkhya connections of Devala.2 Sankara, the great Advaita philosopher, in his commentary on the Brahmasūtra3 has pointed out that Devala and some other authors of Dharmasutras have adopted Samkhya principles. The Dharmasutra of Devala not being available, the testimony of Sankara has not been duly considered. There are quotations from Devala in the Apararka on the Yajnavalkyasmrti' and the Moksa-kanda of Laksmidhara's

1. On kärika, 71 2 See supro, chapter 11 3. L4.28 4. Apararka on Yajnavalkya, Prāyascitta, 109. athato dharmavarjitvanna tiryagyonyam purusarthopadesah i devamanuşayordvividhah puruşarthah labhyudayo nihsreyasamitt tayorabhyudayah paruoktahl duividham nihsreyasam sđmkhyayogäviti | pañcavimsatitattvajñanam samkhyam i bisayebhyo nivarthya bhiprete'rthe manaso'vasthd (pa)nam yogah | ubhayatrapavargah phalam | janmaranaduhkhayoratyanta' bhave' pavargah etau sämkhyogau cadhikrtya yairyuktitah samayatesca pürvapranitāni visalani gambhirāni tantrāniha samksipyoddesato vaksyante 1

236 Retrieuing Samkhya History

Krtyakalpataru." These deal with Samkhya principles. On the basis of these quotations we have argued that there was a

tantra samkhyändmeka malaprakrtih | sapta prakrtivikrtayah | parlca tanmátrdni Isodasa vikārah pañca pańcendriyaní lartháśca Iparca bhatavisesah I trayodasa karanani| trinyantahkarananel catasraseatasro matrjah pitrjasca kosah l paňca vāyuvisesah ltrayć gunah Itrividho bandhahtrayo bandhanetanah | dvau bandhardgau I trini pramdnāni (trividham duhkham \ caturvidhah pratyayasargah i tatha viprayayah pancavidhah l asaktirastavimsatividha i siddhirastavidheti pratyayabhedah pařcasat i astitvamekatvamathärthavattvam parärthamanyatvamatho niurttih 1 yogo viyogo bahavah pumamsah sthitih sarlrasya ca seşaurttih 1l iti dasamülikarthah I atha mülaprakrtiravyaktam I mahānahamkarah parca tanmātrāniti prakrtiuikrtayahl sabdatanmatram sparsa(tan)matram rasatanmatram rüpatanmatram gundhatanmatramiti tanmatranit dvividhanindriyani | bhütavisesasca vikarah | caksuhsrotraghrana- jihvotvaco buddhindriyanil rüpa sabdagandharasa- sparsastesämrthäh i vakpanipādapāyüpasthah karmendriyani l bhasanam kriya gamanamutsarga ananda esam karmanil uayvagnyabakasaprthivyo bhatavisesaht dasendriyoni buddhyahamharamanamsica karanāni lteşu manobudhyahamkara- scantahkaranani| dasa bahisakarananindriyani cal gunasamyalaksanamavyaktam pradhanam prakrtirvidhane mityanarthäntaram ladhyavasayalaksano mahan buddhirmatirüpa- tabdhirityanarthantaram | abhimanalaksano'hamkaro'bhimana ityanarthantaram l na pürvapüruika prakrtih prakrtermahđnutpadyate ltate'hamkarah ahamkarattanmatranindriyāni ca ll tanmatrebhyo isesd ityutpattikramah I yo yasmadutpasyate sa tasmimiltyata itl vå'pyayakramah I1 5. Krtyakalpatari, Moksa, pp. 7, B, 21, 49, 50, 59, 84, 100, 109, 124, 156. 168, 170, 173, 174, 181, 212 & 216. Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, pp. 100-1 tatra samkhyanameka mülaprakrtih | saptaprakrtivikrtayah i mahadahamkārau, pancatanmātrāni, sodasa vikarah | pańca pañcendriyani \ arthasca pařcabhūtavisesāsca | trayodasa karaņāni tesār trinyantahkaranāni I dasa bahihkaranani ll atha mülaprakrtiravyaktam Imahanahamkārah pafca tanmatrāniti prakrtivikrtayahI fabdatanmatram, sparsatanmatram, rüpatanmatram, rasatanmatram| gandhatanmatramiti

Samkhya in the Dharmasūtras 237

Devaladharmasūtra." S.C. Banerji7 also includes Devala in his list of authors of Dharmasutras. Kanes has also admitted that there was a Devaladharmasūtra. Among the modern authorities on Samkhya P. Chakravarti, though mentioning Devala as a Samkhya teacher on the basis of the Moksadharmaparva, does not take notice of the extracts from the Devaladharmasütra dealing with Samkhya. P.V. Kane, in his History of Dharmasastra,10 reproduces the passage recorded by Apararka. G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya," in their recent most standard work on Samkhya, have not included Devala in the list of Samkhya teachers and have not taken any notice of the extracts from the Devaladharmasutra. As against this, Samkhya tanmātrāniti dvividhāni indriyāni mano bhūtaviseșasca vikarah 11 T cakşuhzrotraghranajihvotvaco buddhindrīyāni l rūpasabda gandharasasparsastesamarthah l1 vakpanipadapayüpasthah karmendriyanil bhaşanam kriya gamanamutsargah pritirit karmendriyarthah l vaytagnyåbakasaprthiuyo bhütavisesah 1 dasendriyani buddhyahamkaramanamai ca karanăní tesam manobuddhyahamharascantahkaranani i dasa bahihkaranani indriyaņi ca |i gunasāmyalakşanamavyaktam pradhanam prakrtih vidhanamityanarthantram l adhyavasayalaksano mahan buddhirmatirüpalabdhirityanarthantram | abhimanalaksano' hamkaro vaikariko'hamkariko'bhiman ityanarthantaram l sattāmātralaksanāni tanmātrāni \ svānugrahalakşaņānindriyanya- ksanindriyanyucyante l samkalpalakşanam manah 1 indriyārthalakşanā vişayaviseşa bhataniryanarthantaramiti l sarvapüruika prakrtih | prakrteh mahānutpadyate! mahato. hamkarah l ahamkdrdtanmatrni indriyani cat | tanmatrebhyo visesdl ityutpattikramah 11 6. "Was there a Devaladharmasutra?" Baladeva Upadhyaya Felicitation Volume, Journal ofthe Ganganatha Jha Kendriya Sanskrit Vidyapeeth. Vol XXXVI(1981), pp. 189-97, AlsoP.V. Kane, History of Dharmasastra, 2nd edn. Vol. I, part 1, pp. 283-4. 7. Dharmasūtras, pp. 53, 247-57. 8. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I, 2nd edn, pp. 282-3; Vol. V, pp. 1353, 1380-1, 1431-2. 9 Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 44. 127. 10. Vol. V, pp. 1380-81. 11. Samkhya

238 Retrieving Samkhya History studies in Hindi have often referred to this account of Samkhya, U.V. Shastri" took pains to record the passages as quoted by the Apararka and Laksmīdhara. His lead has been followed among others, by A.P.Mishra," Musalagaonkar," and Usha Kushwaha." But, none of these scholars has subjected the Samkhya views expressed in the extracts to a critical analysis. The Devaladharmasutra has not been reconstructed through the available extracts.16 U.V. Shastri17 has collected many prose passages. Some prose passages are noted by S.C. Banerji.1 An analysis of passages dealing with some specific topics shows the high value of this source.1

Philosophical Passages in the Devaladharmasutra The surviving passages show that the section in the Devaladharmasutra which concerned Samkhya began with a reference to purusarthas (goals of human life). It classifies purușarthas intotwo abhyudaya (prosperity) and nihsreyas (highest bliss). The reference says that the earlier section of the text dealt with abhyudaya, whereas the present one aimed at covering nihsreyas. Nihsreyas comprises of Samkhya and Yoga. Samkhya is the knowledge of twenty-five categories (pancavimsati-tattva-jnana). Yoga is the fixing of the mind on the desired goal after turning it away from objects of senses (vişayebhyas nivarttya'bhipre

12 Samkhyadarsana ka itihdsa, pp. 600-5. 13. Samkhyadarsana ki aitihasika paramparā, p. 159. 14. Samkhyatattvakaumudt, Introduction, p. 47. 15 Samkhyadarsana aur dyurveda, p. 16. 16 Our recunstruction will be published separately. 17. Op. cit., pp 600-5. 18 Op. cit., pp. 247-57. 19. Our article "Devala on Aristas" in Indological Studies, Prof. D.C Sircar Commemoration Volume (ed by S.K. Maity and U. Thakur), pp 141-2; "Devaladharmasütra on Aisvarya", in Sri Dinesacandrikd Studies in Indology (D.C. Sircar Felicitation Volume), pp. 153-8 "Devaladharmasütra on Varnas and Jatis", in Dr. R.N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume, pp. 239-45.

Samkhya in the Dharmasūtras 239

manaso'vasthapanam). Apavarga (absolution) is the fruit of both Samkhya and Yoga. It means the total disappearance (atyanta'. bhava) of the sufferings.29 The text says that on Samkhya and Yoga there are extensive (visala) and profound (gambhira) tantras composed earlier with the help of ratiocination (ukti) and tradition (samaya), and that they have been summarised (samksipya) and presented according to their subjects (uddesa).21 The Samkhya envisages one mula-prokrti (primeval matter) seven prakrti-vikrtis (modifications of prakrti) mahat (the great one) and ahamkara (ego),"five tanmatras (subtle elements), sixteen vikaras(products), fiveindriyas(organs)(ofjnana) and five(indriyas of harma), arthas (five objects of senses), five bhūtavisesas (gross elements), thirteen karanas (instruments of action) of which three are internal (antahkarana) and ten external (bahihkarana) or the indriyas.23 The enumeration is continued further in the passage quoted by Apararka. There are four kosas (vestures) each born of the father and the mother; five (vayu-visesas) (special winds), three gunas (properties or constitutents), two types of bandhas (bondage), three bandhahetus (cause of bondage), the two bandha (bondage) and rāga (affection), three pramanas (sources of correct knowledge), three types of duhkha (suffering). The passage further says that the prutyaya-sarga (intellectual creation) is of four types. Viparyaya

20. Laksmidhara does not reproduce this introductory passage as prefacing the account of Sankhya (Krtya., Moksa, pp. 100-1) but quotes it later ubid., p. 165) in another context Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p. 165. devamanusyahoh duividhah purusārtho' bhyudayo nihsreyasamiti ! tayorabhyudayah pürvoktah dvividhah nihsreyasamiti samkhyayogau pancavimsatitattvajnanam samkhyam | vişayebhyo niurtya bhiprete'rthe manaso'vasthapanam yogah l ubhayatrapa-vargah phalam 11 21. Laksmidhara omits this passage. 22 Aparárka omits mahadamkarau 23 Aparārka omits dasa bahihkaranāni indriyani ca.

240 Retrieving Samkhya History

(wrong notion) is of five kinds. Asakti (incapacity) is of twenty-eight kinds. Tusti (contentment) is of nine kinds. Siddhi (perfection) is of eight kinds. Thus, there are fifty divisions of pratyaya. Existence (of prakrti, astitva),"4 its singleness (ekatvam) (and) objectiveness (arthvattuam); subserviency (of prakrti on purusa, parârtham), distinctiveness (of purusa from prakrti, anyatvam), inactivity (niurtti)," conjuction (of purusa and prakrti, yoga), disjunetion (of purusa from prakrti, viyoga), plurality of purușa (bahavah pumamsah)" and the existence of body along with the unmanifest nature of prakrti (sthitih sartrasya ca sesaurttih)." These are the ten mūlikarthas (radical categories). In the following passage we find an explanation and elaboration of the categories mentioned above. Thus, mula-prakrti is described as avyakta. Mahat, ahamkara and five tanmatras are referred to as the prakrti-vikrtis. The tanmatras are those of sabda (sound), sparsa (touch), rasa (taste), rüpa (form) and gandha (smell), The indriyas are of two types. The bhuta-visesas are the vikaras (products). Eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin are buddhindriyas (the sense-organs). Rūpa, sabda, gandha, rasa and sparsa are their arthas (objects). Väk (speech, here signifying mouth), pāni (hands), pāda (feet), pāyu (anus) and upastha (organ of generation) are the karmendriyas (organs ofaction). Bhāşana (speaking), kriya (doing), gamana (going), utsarga (excretion) and ananda (joy, here coitus) are their karmas (actions). Vayu (air), agni, (fire), āp (water) akasa (ether) and prthiut (earth) are the bhuta-visesas. The ten indriyas, buddhi (intellect), ahamkara (ego) and manas [mind) and the karanas. Of these manas, buddhi and ahamkara are the antahkaranas. The ten bahişkaranas are the indriyas. The passage goes on to explain the categories in terms of their laksana (characteristics) and arthantara (synonyms). The auyakta is 24. Rajaudrtika as quoted in the Samkhyatattvakaumudt of Vacaspati (on Samkhyakarika 72) mentions it as prodhandstitvam 25 Rajavartika mentions it as akartrtvam. 26 Rajavartika has anaikyam 27 Rajavartikn has only sesaurttih which is not properly explained Possibly it refers to the unmanifest form of prakrti

Samkhya in the Dharmasutras 241 characterised by theequilibrium ofgunas(gunasamya), and pradhana, prakrti and vidhana are the synonyms. Mahat is characterised by adhyavasäya (ascertainment) its synonyms are buddhi, mati and upalabdhi. Ahamkara is characterised by abhimana (self-conceit), vaikārika, ahamkāra and abhimān are the synonyms. The text goes on to explain the other categories in a similar manner. Apararka has omitted this passage, but Laksmidhara records a part of it. The tanmatras are characterised by mere existence (satta-matra). The indriyas are characterised by acceptance of their objects (svanugraha), The eyes (aksa) are said to be indriyas. The manas is characterised by volition (samkalpa). The visaya-visesas are characterised as the objects of the indriyas (indriyartha); they are synonymous with bhutas (elements). The next passage deals with the process of evolution and dissolution. For evolution the term used is utpatti. The passage in Aparärka says that there is no preceding category before prakrti (na pūrvapūrika prakrtih). The passage as recorded by Laksmidhara says that prakrti precedes all the categories (sarvapürvika). From prakrti is evolved mahat. From the later is evolved ahamkara. From ahamkara are evolved the tanmatras and the indriyas. From the tanmätras are evolved the visesas. The passage dealing with the process of dissolution (apyaya-krama)is found only in Apararka. It says that a category is dissolved into the category from which it evolves. The passage quoted by Apararka ends here. The parallel passage in the Krtyakalpataru also does not go beyond this. But, the Krtyakalpataru records some other passages in other contexts which can be connected with the main passage as they elaborate and explain the points in it. Thus, one passage2' deals with the three 28. Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p 124. prakrtibandho vaikarikabandho daksinabandha iti bandhatrayt) tatra'vyaktadibhirastabhirbandhah (prakrtibandhah)\ indriya- irindriyärthesu bandho vaikarikabandhah liştapürttadibhirbandho daksinabandhah I tatra prahrtisu bandho devatdnam daksina- bhirasraminam vaikarairanesam dharmo' jnanani ca bandhahetavah II

242 Retrieving Samkhya History bandhas and the bandhahetus. The vaikarika bandha is caused by the indriyas in their objects. The bandha caused by istapurtta (sacrifices, digging wells, etc., and other acts of charity) and others is called the daksinabandha. The bandha in the prakrtis characterises the gods (devatanam), that caused by daksinas characterises the people of the four asramas (asraminam) and that caused by vaikaras the other beings. The ignorances (ajnanani) are the cause of bandha. The Devaladharmasütra gave much coverage to the topic of the defects of thought of action which are sinful and result in the bondage of man. The emphasis on metaphysical topics has tended to reduce the importance of these portions. In the Devaladharma- sutra there was an exhaustive account of demerits caused by sin (papa-dosa). They arise out of mind, speech and body (manovakya- sariraja). The text lists the various types of papa-dosas arising out of the three sources. U.V. Shastri has not reproduced all the relevant passages. He gives only the introductory passage up to the listing of twelve types of papa-dosas arising out of mind. Another passage in the text dealt with the subject of kasaya (passion).3º Raga (affection) dvesa (abhorrence) and moha (attachment) are called kasayas. They can be eradicated (apakarsana) through five types oftapas (austerities) characterised by yama and niyama and also through the knowledge of the categories (tattva-jnana). This is the burning of kasayas (kaşāya- pacana). The text discussed separately the subject of final goal or emancipation. The full details of the account are not available, but one can form an idea of its nature from the surviving two passages.

29. Op. cit., p. 603. Krtyakalpataru, Mokşa, p 84. athātah pāpadoşān manovākyasarirajan uyākhyasyamah i tatra moharagadveşamanalobhamadasokamamatoa'hamkārabhaya- harsamoghavittamoghacintasceti duadasa manasah !! 30. Krtyahalpataru, Moksa, p. 168 ragadvesamahah kaşāyā ucyante i tesām yamaniyamalaksanena tapasd pañcavidhena tattvajranena cdpakarşanam lkasayapacanam !1

Samkhya in the Dharmasutras 243

One passage says that prayojanas (purpose or objective) are of four types: sdyujya (identical unity) salokya (residing in the same heaven), prakrtiaya (merging in the prakrti) and moksa (liberation). It defines sayujya as being through the acquisition of supernatural powers (aisvaryāvāpatiyuktya) ekajalpa11 with Hiranyagarbha, Narāyana, Šiva, Mahendra, Soma, Sūrya, Skanda, Jyesthā, Umā, Devi and other divinities." In the extant passages there is no explanation of the other prayojanas. Another quotation purports to describe the condition of a liberated person according to sāmkhya (iti sāmkhyam)." The special term for such a person does not occur in it. Obstracted from the world (niurtta), being without gunas (nirguna), with his bandhas broken (chinna- bandha), released from the suffering of birth, old age and death, is as if asleep (suptavat), intoxicated (mattavat), or having inhaled the smoke of poison (visadhūmapanavat) such a person devoid of sattva and other gunas (sattvadihina) and based in the tanmatras (tanmatravasthita), achieves the final (ekantika) highestbliss(parama- sukha). Devala classifies sarira (body) into three: devatā (god), mānușa (man) and tiryak (animal).3 He lists in detail the characteristic features, qualities and defects, o the three. The classification is of

31. U.V. Shastri is not sure of the expression, We wonder if it is intended to mean 'getting the same name. Other possible reading can be ekakalpa, ekatalpa, but they do not adequately cover the expression sāyujya. 32. Krtyakalkpataru, Mokşa, p. 8- sāyujyam salokyam prakrtilayo moksasceti caturvidham prayojanam. teşamaisvaryavaptiyuktya hiranyagarbhanayanasivamahendra- somasüryaskandajyeşthomadeulprabhrtinam devatanamai- kajalpam(?)sayjyam 11 33. Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p. 7- sa tatha nivrtto nirgunaschinnabandho janmajaramarana- duhkhavinirmuktah suptavat mattavat vişadhūmapanavat sattuadihinah tanmatravasthitah paramasukhamaikantika- madhigacchattti samkhyam 11 34. Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p. 109.

244 Retrieving Samkhya History central importance, because the account of purusarthas and the following exposition of Samkhya and Yoga are based on it. Apararka does not record the passages dealing with Yoga. They are found in the Krtyakalpataru. There is no consolidated account of the principles of Yoga parallel to that of Samkhya. The surviving passages indicate that this section was comparatively longer and more detailed. The style in the two cases has similarities, with differences on account of the nature of the topics covered. Before taking up an analysis of passages dealing with Yoga, we may refer to some others which relate to allied topics, but do not come strictly under Yoga. One passage35 lists some noble qualities and conduct, without referring to the context. Another passage deals with the rules relating to a pariurajaka.36 A third passage deals with the duties and rules for a yati."7 A fourth passage describes in details the conduct to be followed when the yati goes for bhiksa (begging).1 Evidently these passages were connected with the section of the dharmasūtra which described the rules concerning the asramas. In this case the third and the fourth designated here as parivrajaka and yati, in place of vānaprastha and samnyāsa respectively. The passages expounding principles of Yoga have not been recorded. We have disjointed passages describing prānāyama, pratyāhāra, dhāranā and dhyāna. Prāņayama is said to be of three types kumbha, recana and pūraņa. The passage goes on to explain udvāta, prāna, apāna, vyāna, udāna and samāna.39 Two passages define pratyāhara and dharanā.“ The fourth passage is a long one and covers all the important aspects of dhyana.41 35. Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p. 21. 36. Ibid., p. 49 37. Ibid., p. 50. 38. Ibid., p. 59 39. Ibid., Moksa, p. 170. 40. Ibid., pp. 173, 174. 41. Ibid., p. 181.

Samkhya in the Dharmasutras 245

A passage lists ten upasargas (hindrances or trouble) for a yogin.42 We have a long passage on the eight properties (gunas) of aisvarya (high spiritual powers)." In Yoga they are well-known as niddhis. The eight oisvaryas are listed as anima (becoming small as an atom), mahima (increasing size at will), laghima (assuming lightness at will) prâpti (obtaining anything)prakamya (irresistible will) Isitva (superiority), vasitva (controlling one's self) and yatrakāmāvasāyitva (entering a place according to will). There are broadly classified into two: the first three relating to the body (sarira) and the remaining five to the organs (aindriya). The nature of the eight powers is explained in the same style in which the terms in the Samkhya passages are treated. Yatrakāmavasayitva is said to be of three types:chayavesa (entering the shadow), avadhyanavesa (entering the mind of a distant person) and angapravesa (entering the body) which also are duly explained. The passage refers to entering into a material object (murtta-dravya) by the power of yatrakámāvasāyitva to be possible through a very high aisvarya. The concluding sentence says that having obtained these aisvarya properties a person having eradicated sin (uddhrtakalmasa), having destroyed doubt (chinna-samsaya), having himself perceived the truth (pratyaksadarst), knowing the all-including dharma (dharmapravarajna) and knowing that all this rooted in falsehood (kütastha sarvamidam, isnon-existent (asat) and notlasting (anitya), by himself obtains peace (santi). This is known as the obtaining of aisvarya (aisvaryāuyāpti sic. - āvāpti).

Features of Devala's Exposition Wehavediscussed" the contributions of Devala, in his Dharmasūtra, in systematising Samkhya and introducing an element of standardisation. Devala has a very distinctive style. He first gives a summarised

42 Krtyakalpataru, Moksa, p. 212. 43 Ibid., p. 216. 44. See infra chapter 19.

246 Retrieving Samkhya History account of the Samkhya principles. He, then explains the categories eleborating them by listing their components. Where necessary he adds further details. Thus he first mentions mahat, ahamkara and the five tanmatras as the prakrti-vikrtis. Then he enumerates the five tanmatras. The most distinctive nature is demarcated and described. Samkhya is defined as the knowledge of the twenty-five categories. But the categories are not listed in a compact form. It can, however, be seen that they include prakrti, seven prakrti- vikrtis and sixteen vikaras. Purusa is implied as the twenty-fifth tattva, but has not been mentioned in the surviving extracts. Likewise, in the case of the sixteen vikaras the two types ofindriyas and the five arthas or bhata-visesas are mentioned, but not the manas. This is only accidental, because later in connection with the karanas, manas is included in the three antahkaranas. Later manas is explained separately as characterised by samkalpa. Devala has given two separate expositions of Samkhya. The first is in the form of twenty-five categories. In the second he mentions fifty pratyayas, classified into four pratyaya-sargas, five viparyayas, twenty-eight asaktis, nine tustis and eight siddhis. Immediately following this is a verse enumerating ten mūlikarthas. Thus, in the second case we find a reference to sixty (fifty+ten) principles. Devala gives primary to the exposition of twnety-five categories, but retains the earlier tradition of sixty principles (sasthitantra). He makes a departure from the earlier tradition inasmuch as he enumerates the sixty principles, but does not label them as such. Isvarakrsna also expounds Samkhya through twenty- five categories and describes the fifty pratyaya-sargas. But, he omits the ten mulikarthas altogether, and, thus, even though proclaiming his faith fulness to the sasthitantra, deviates from it in a marked manner. Devala represents an intermediate stage between the early tradition of sasthitantra and the later standardisation introduced by Isvarakrsna. The sasthitantra included ten mūlikarthas and fifty pratyaya-sargas. Later, Samkhya came to be described in terms of the categories, whose number was standardised as twenty- five. Devala accepted the definition of Samkhya as expounding the

Samkhya in the Dharmastras 247

twenty-five categories. He retained the earlier tradition of sasthitantra also. He chose to emphasise the central position of twenty-five categories and diluted the importance of the sasthitantras by not designating the sixty principles as sasthitantra even while enumerating them. Isvarakrana will be placed much later in the sequence of development. Though repeating his avowed allegiance to the sasthitantra principles, he does not follow its system of enumeration. He deviates from it and adopts the system of twenty-five categories. It is a truncated sasthitantra which Isvarakrsna retains. He expounds the prartyaya-sargas, but omits altogether the vital account of ten mūlikārthas. In his account of Samkhya Devala mentions some details which generally are not duly emphasised. Thus, he refers to kosas, four created by the mother (matrja) and four by the father (pitrja). He also mentions five types of special winds (vayu-visesa). In both the cases the cryptic passages are not followed by a detailed exposition of their constituent elements. Devala assigns an important position to the evolution and dissolution of the categories. For those the technical terms used are utpatti-krama and apyaya-krama. According to him, mahat, the tanmatras and the indriyas evolve from ahamkara. The visesas (elements) evolve from the tanmatras. The reversal of the process is dissolution, in which a category dissolves into the one from which it evolves. Here there is no specific reference to the evolution of manas from ahamkara, but it seems to be included in the indriyas. Devala envisages two separate lines of evolution from ahamkara, one, the indriyas (including the manas) and the second of the tanmatras. The sequence of evolution leads to the emergence of gross elements (bhuta-viseasas) from the subtle elements (tanmatras). According to Isvarakrsna, the original formulation of Samkhya principles by Kapila considered the question ofcreation, sustenance and dissolution of the world.4 The accounts of Samkhya principles

45. Samkhyakarika, 69

248 Retrieving Samkhya History associated with some early teachers in the Moksadharmaparva also contain passages dealing with this topic, in which is entwined the process of the emergence of tattvas. The replacement of the description of the creation and dissolution of the world by an account of the evolution of categories from prakrti appears to be a feature of Samkhya in a later period when it was identified with tweny-five tattvas. In Devala we have only the treatment of the philosophical problem of evolution of categories, without any reference to the process of creation of world. U,V. Shastri6 points out that in the Devaladharmasūtra passage, as quoted in the Aparärka, there are four sutras which are idential with sutras in the Tattvasamasasutra4T and three others are identically similar."Three other sutras can also be traced49 in the Tattuasamasasütra with the difference that the order of words is reversed. Shastri adds that in the case of the third category of three sütras the Samkhyasadadhyayt (=Samkhyapravacanasūtra) has expressions which are identical with those in the Devaladharma- sütra. He adds that the Samkhyasadadhyayt has four other sutras5! which have close parallels in the Devaladharmasutra. On the basis of this, analysis Shastri argues for the authenticity and early date of the two texts, Samkhyasadadhyayl and the Tattvasamāsasütra. According to him, the Samkhyasadādhyayt was the main text, whereas the Tattvasamasasutra was in the form of a list of the contents of the former. He argues for the Devaladharmasütra being indebted to the Samkhyasadadhyayt. A.P. Mishra52 suggests that if Devala did not derive his sütras from these texts, he was indebted to some early text in the form of an exposition based on these texts which was attempted by Pancasikha 46 Op. cit., pp. 263-4 47. Sūtras, 2, 16, 19, 22. 48 Ibid., p. 4, 10, 21 49. Ibid. 50. IIL38-40. 51. 161: 11.13, 16, 38; I11.37 52. Op.cit., pp. 159-60

Samkhya in the Dharmasūtras 249

or some other author. H.D. Sharma" objects that the suggestion of Devala being indebted to the Samkhyasutra texts is based on the assumption that the latter were earlier in date; but this has to be proved and not assumed. Those, who consider the Samkhya. pravacanasūtra and the Tattvasamasasūtra to be later texts, suggest that Devala possibly drew from some other text which is presently lost. Shastri holds that two sutra texts of Samkhya were ancient texts, though they were touched in later times. Devala himself admits that he borrowed from earlier texts. Shastri says that instead of imagining an unknown text one should admit the obvious that Devala borrowed from the Samkhyasutras. He advances evidence for an early date for Devala to suggest an even earlier date for the two Samkhya texts. For the present we will not enter into a discussion about the date of the two Samkhya texts. What is significant is the use of sütras by Devala. In many branches of Sanskrit learning the early formulations were often as sūtras. U.V. Shastri54 collects evidence referring to some early presentations of Samkhya principles in the satra form: Vidyaranya's commentary on the Sūtasamhita, Vardhamāna's commentary on Udayana's Nyāyakusumāñjali, Vacaspatimisra's commentary Samkhyatattvakaumudi, Gopalatāpint Upanisad, Garbhopanișad and Gaudapāda's commentary on Samkhyasaptati. This is clearly brought out by many quotations recorded in the Yuktidipika. The Samkhya view presented in the Susruta-samhita follows the sûtra style. Siddharsi in his Upamitibhavaprapanca-katha55 (dated AD 904) presents Samkhya principles in sūtras. The Bhagavadajjukiya, which is referred to in the Mamandoor inscription of the Pallava King Mahendravikramavarman (AD 650) expounds Samkhya principles in sütras.5 Thus, the sutras characteristic of in which Devala's exposition of Samkhya point to its early date in Samkhya history.

53. Sankhyatattvakaumudt, Introduction, p. 23. 54. Op. cit .. pp. 230-68. 55. P. 666-7. 56. T.R. Chintamani in Journal of Oriental Research, April 1928.

250 Retrieving Samkhya History Devaladharmasutra in the History of Samkhya An analysis of the passages of the Devaladharmasutra shows parallelism with the Samkhyakarika both in the topics covered and the details of the views, which does not leave any doubt about the exposition being genuine Samkhya, and confirms the testimony of Sankarācārya. This emphasises the need for giving due importance to the Devala evidence for reconstructing the nature of Samkhya and its historical development. The proper evaluation of Samkhya in historical perspective is seriously handicaped by the fact that we have only one ancient Samkhya text, the Samkhyakarika. The other two available Samkhya texts, the Tattvasamasasutra and the Samkhyapravacanasūtra, have a suspect value as compositions of an early period. We do have stray quotations of the views of some Samkhya teachers. The accounts of Samkhya principles in the Caraka-samhita, Buddhacarita and the Moksadharmaparva section in the Mahabharata have their own limitations as sources for the history of Samkhya, because, though containing views of earlier Samkhya teachers, they are presented by others in a later period. The Devaladharmasutra has the advantage of being the original formulation of its own author. Moreover, though the complete text is not available, the surviving passages provide an idea of its main features. Here we do not have a mere collection of stray sentences but a compact account of the important aspects of the system in a summarised form, and the detailed treatment of some points seems to have dropped out. This source will serve as a corrective to several views expressed by modern scholars to cover the gaps in the history of Samkhya caused by paucity ofrelevant evidence. Thus Johnston has attempted a history in terms of the emergence and development of terms and principles. But, there is a need to associate these ideas with their expounders. In this context the testimony of Devala is of great significance, because now we know of a definite stage when Devala codified in a summarised form the Samkhya principles expounded in earlier texts. Some modern scholars have attributed certain principles to individual Samkhya teachers. In some cases they have taken recourse to imagination for crediting Pancasikha, Āsuri,

Samkhya in the Dharmasūtras 251

Varsaganya or Isvarakrsna for their authorship. If a principle ascribed to a teacher of a date later than Devala occurs in the Devaladharmasūtra, then the attribution cannot valid. A suggestion, associating a principle with an earlier teacher, receives support from its occurrence in the Devala extracts.

Date of the Devaladharmasūtra

The date of the Devaladharmasutra has not been fixed. P.V. Kane is silent about it." Musalagaonkar places it in the third century of the Vikrama era. He bases his view on partial evidence. It is to be noted that there are several Dharmasastra texts associated with the name of Devala. Besides the well-known Devalasmrti in ninety verses, which was composed in the eighth century, there were, according to Kane, two ancient texts, a Devalasmrti and a Devaladharmasutra, which are now lost and are known only through quotations in later commentries and digests. When Kane published the first edition of the first volume of his History of Dharmasastra, he did not recognise the separate existence of a Devaladharmasütra. At that time the date which he proposed for Devala applied to Devala, the author of the Smrti. This date has been applied by Musalagaonkar to Devala, the author of the Dharmasūtra, also. The date of the Devaladharmasūtra has to be discussed independently and separately. Devala was an ancient sage. The Buddhist tradition mentions him as being elder to the Buddha, but it does not refer to his views and contributions which may lead to his identification as the author of a Dharmasūtra. The Jain text Isibhasiyaim devotes a section to the views of Asita-Devala." In this text Asita-Devala is recognised as one of the ancient sages, all of whom did not necessarily belong to the Jain tradition. The account in the text could have been a modified presentation of the views of Devala. But, we cannot be sure about it actually occurring in the Devaladharmasutra. In the

57. History of Dharmasastra, 2nd edn., Vol. I, part I, pp. 282-3. 58 Samkhyatattvakaumudt, Introduction p. 47. 59 See Appendix, II.

252 Retrieving Samkhya History Moksadharmaparva section in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata Devala appears as an ancient Samkhya teacher who was a pupil of Jaigisavya, who, in his turn, was a disciple of Paňcasikha. His views are presented in one chapter. We recognise Samkhya views of Devala represented in the format of the Moksadharmaparva, but it will be difficult to accept them as being faithful to the exposition in the Devaladharmasütra." The evidence discussed above helps us in indicating a rough upper limit for Devala, the Samkhya teacher. But, it cannot suggest the date of the Devaladharmasutra. The date of this text is to be fixed on its own. The quotations from it occurring in the Apararka and the Krtyakalpataru provide a lower limit. This may be pushed considerably by the reference to its Samkhya expositions by Sankarācārya. Sankara implies that it was an early text, which was little known and little consulted as a source for Samkhya system. This will place the Devaladharmasūtra long before Sankara and certainly earlier than the commonly known writings on Samkhya. We cannot ascertain all these texts referred to by Sankara. Possibly he had in his mind the Samkhyakarika and the commentaries on it and the Moksa- dharmaparva section in the Santiparva. This provides an argument to push back the lower limit. The very fact that the text is a Dharmasutra narrows down the time-bracket for it. There is no traditional list of Dharmasutras. It is, however, recognised that, besides the available Dharmasūtras, there were quite a few others. The known Dharmasutras are generally placed in the time-bracket of 500 BC to AD 200, which may hold good for the text under consideration. This is not a place for a lengthy discussion on the dating of the Dharmasutras. The upper limit of 500 Bc is generally suggested on the assumption that the Dharmasutras belong to the post-Buddha phase of history. The argument is that, to contain the overflow of asceticism released by Buddhism, the theory of four asramas was

60. See supra chapter 11.

Samkhya in the Dharmasatras 253

formulated, accomodating samnyäsa as the fourth asrama. It is said that this task was accomplished by the Dharmasutras. But the thesis of a post-Buddha origin of the asrama system is presumptuous. The system had its origin in the period of the later Vedic texts. It does not seem to have acquired a fixed form even in the Dharmasutras. There are variations in the nomenclature of the asramas and the order of their enumeration. Hence the upper limit is not so sacrosant as it is taken to be and may require adjustments. There is no accpeted definition of Dharmasutra in terms of its nature, scope and contents. An analysis of the available Dharmasūtra works shows that, besides trating topics, which are covered by Smrti texts, they covered the subject of moksa. On account of this approach the Dharmasutras are found dealing with topics relating to Samkhya and Yoga. In course of time the coverage of Samkhya- Yoga seems to have gradually decreased. The extent to which the Moksa-kanda section of a Dharmasutra covers various topics indicates its position in the chronological order of the Dharmasutras. In this respect the Devaladharmasutra is distinctive in giving the widest coverage to Samkhya and Yoga. From the available extracts it is clear that there were two main divisions or books in this text. One dealt with the purusartha of abhyudaya and related to Smrti topics. The other concerned nihsreyas, of which apavarga was objective. Samkhya and Yoga both lead to apavarga. The text goes on to cover exhaustively topics relating to Samkha and Yoga. Other Dharmasutras dealt with only a few topics, mostly relating to Yoga. This would suggest that the Devaladharmasatra was among the earliest Dharmasutras. Some of the Dharmasutras are associated with specific Vedic sakhas. But this affiliation is not known for other Dharmasūtras. The Devaladharmasutra is not claimed by any Vedic sakha. This was possibly a reason for the text not being preserved in its fullness by the tradition. Among the Kalpasutras the Dharmasutras, as compared with the Srautasutras and the Grhyasutras, do not seem to have always emerged in the association of particular sakhas, but were possibly adopted subsequently by them. Here also the earlier Dharmasutra texts differed from the later ones. The detailed

254 Retrieving Samkhya History exposition of Samkhya by the Devaladharmasutra may have stood in the way of its adoption by a Vedic sakha. Though this is not a very definitive argument, it favours an early position for the Devaladharmasutra in the list of the Dharmasūtras. The internal evidence of the text does not provide clues for fixing its date. It does not mention any specific author, text or historical person. It does, however, refer to earlier tantras on Samkhya and Yoga, extensive and profound, which were summarised by the author to present his account. This implies the presence of a rich Sämkhya literature, some of which were designated as Tantra. The Moksadharmaparva mentions the views of a number of Samkhya philosophers, but their original writings have not survived. In the earlier times there was a text, generally named as Sasthitantra. The text and its author cannot be identified. Pancasikha is credited with expanding the Samkhya system. Some scholars believe that he was the author of the Sasthitantra. Some texts are circulated under the name of Kapila, but the ascription is not certain. The claims of Samkhyapravacanasutra and Tattvasamasasūtra as early Samkhya texts are suspect. The avowed assertion ofits author ill, imany case, place the Devaladharmasūtra after the Sasthitantra phase of Samkhya. There are two indications for an early date of this text. First, it is in the sütra style, which brackets it with references to some early formulations of Samkhya in the form of sutras."1 Second, the text belongs to the phase of Samkhya history, when its exposition in terms of sixty principles had come to be replaced by its identification with twenty-five categories." The way the author retains an account of the earlier presentation of Samkhya principles shows that not much time had elapsed after the formulation of the twenty-five categories and it had not completely ousted the earlier system. The author refers to sixty principles, fifty pratyaya-sargas and ten mülikarthas, without combining them to form a single unit of sixty. The later Samkhya tradition retained fifty pratyaya-sargas out of

61, See supra under section "Features of Devala's Exposition". 62. See supro, under section "Features of Devala's Exposition".

Samkhya in the Dharmasutras 255

the sixty. The Samkhyakarika discusses them elaborately. But the ten mulikarthas are omitted in standard accounts of Samkhya. A verse attributed to samgrahakara by Sankara, the author of the Jayamańgala commentary on the Samkhyakarika, enumerates them.“ Devala has a direct and clear knowledge of the mūlikarthas. He was not far removed from the times when the concept of the mūlikarthas was a common knowledge. We have noted that Jain and Buddhist traditions remember Devala as an ancient sage. The Moksadharmaparva has a more pointed knowledge of Devala as a Samkhya teacher. We have made a comparative study of the Samkhya principles in the Devala chapter in the Moksadharmaparva and the Devaladharmasūtra. The author of the Devala chapter had a knowledge of the Samkhya views of Devala, but we cannot prove that he based his presentation on the account in the Dharmasutra.65 From the Moksadharmaparva we know that Devala was a pupil of Jaigisavya, who in his turn learnt Samkhya from Pancasikha. We have argued for c. 650 Bc as the date of Jaigişavya.66 Thus we can infer that Devala may be placed around 600 Bc and the composition of the Dharmasutra associated with his name may be dated around 550-500 Bc.

63 See our article "The Mulikarthas in Samkhya", Indian Historical Reviewo, Vol. pp. 64 See supra chapter 19 65 See supra chapter 11. 66 See supra chapter 9

13

Sāmkhya and the Hārītadharmasūtra

Hārita as a Sāmkhya Teacher THE name of Harita as a Samkhya teacher is known from the Yuktidipika' and Matharaurtti,2 two commentaries on the Samkhyakarika. He is not mentioned in any other source, nor are his views referred to or his treatise quoted in them. The list of Samkhya teachers in the Yuktidipika begins with the name of Harita.3 The position of Harita in this list cannot be suggestive of his chronological position. Opposed to this is the evidence of the Matharavrtti, places Harita as the third in its list of four Samkhya teachers between Pancasikha and Iśvarakrsņa.

Hārita as a Smrti Writer Harita is known as a Smrti writer. He have two sets each of Vrddha- Harita-smrti and Laghu-Harita-smrti included in the two collections of Smrtis published by Jivananda and Anandasrama. The Laghu- Harita-smrti of the Anandasrama collection is a small text of 117 verses on topics falling within the recognised scope of a Smrti. The Laghu-Harita-smrti in the Jivananda collection4 has about 250

1. P. 175. 2. On kārika, 71. 3. As pointed out by the editor, the lacuna before the name in the manuscript suggests that the list had another name before Harita. 4. Vol. I, pp. 177-93.

258 Retrieving Samkhya History verses grouped in seven chapters. Besides the duties of the four varnas and asramas, it deals with Yoga also. The Vrddha-Harita-smrti in the two collections is the same, with a very minor difference in chapterisation. This Smrti contains about 2600 verses. The Jivananda collection5 arranges the verses into eight chapters. The Anandasrama collection breaks the first two chapters of Jivananda collection into five chapters and, thus, has a total of eleven chapters. The Vrddha-Harita-smrti deals with the nitya and naimittika rites of the varnas and asramas and also such philosophical subjects as the nature of the individual self, the Supreme self, and the means of attaining moksa. P.V. Kane5 regards Vrddha-Harita-smrti, a professedly Vaisnavite text, to be a comparatively late work. The Laghu- Hartta-smrti of the Anandasrama collection contains some verses which are ascribed to Harita in Apararka and the Smrticandrika. Kane7 suggests that several Smrti texts were compiled and ascribed to Harita, 'probably because they were based more or less on the Haritadharmasūtra'. Evidently, when the Yuktidtpika and the Matharavrtti included Harita in their lists of Samkhya teachers, they did not have in their mind any of these Haritasmrti texts. On the contrary, when the Laghu-Hartta-smrti (of the Jivananda collection) and the Vrddha- Harita-samrti were compiled, their authors may have been influenced by the reputation of Harita as a Samkhya teacher to include portions relating to Yoga, the nature of the individual self, Supreme Self and the means of attaining moksa. Hāritadharmasūtra Kumārila, in his Tantravārttika," mentions Hārita as a sūtrakāra on dharma. The original text is not available, but numerous

5. Vol I. pp. 194-409 6. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I, part 1, p. 135. 7. Op. cit., p. 135 8. P. 179

Samkhya and the Haritadharmasūtra 259

quotations from it, preserved in the medieval commentaries and nibandhas indicate that it was a very extensive text in mixed prose and verse, which 'dealt exhaustively with the same topics as are dealt with in other Dharmasutras'."S.C. Banerji has attempted a reconstruction of the Harttadhadrmasutra," but, in his monograph Dharma-sütras,11 he confines himself to prose passages of Harita. Vamanasastri Islampurkar reported a manuscript of the Haritadharmasutra at Nasik.1 But, the manuscript has not been published, nor has it been critically analysed. Kane1 suggests that this Dharmasutra text was associated with the Black Yajurueda. Harita is quoted as an authority in the Dharmasutras of Baudhayana, Apastamba and Vasistha." This indicates that he was among the early Dharmasutra writers and was held in high esteem. The allusion to Harita as a Samkhya teacher was possibly intended to refer to the Haritadharmasutra. This is suggested by the fact that the list of four Samkhya teachers, named in the Matharavrtti, has Hărita immediately before Devala, who was a Dharmasūtra writer. Sankara, the great Advaita philosopher, in his commentary on the Vedantasūtra,15 points out that Devala and some other Dharmasutra writers adopted Samkhya principles in their works. Aparārka and Lakşmidhara (Krtyakalpataru) quote passages from Devala giving an account of Samkhya principles.16 This confirms the testimony of Sankara and makes a case for some other Dharmasutra writers also dealing with Samkhya in their works. Harita was one of these Dharmasutra authors.

9 Kane, op. cit., pp. 127-36. 10. Journal of Oriental Institute, Vol. VIII, 1958, pp. 14-37. But a more thorough search will reveal many more passages and a bigger volume, 11. P. 257-89. 12 Jolly, Hindu Law and Custom, pp. 8-9. See also Kane, op. cif., pp. 125- 6 13. Op. cit 14 Kane, op cit., pp. 127-8. 15. 1.4.28. 16 U.V. Shastri, Samkhyadarsana ka itihasa, pp. 600-5

260 Retrieving Sämkhya History Extracts from Haritadharmasutra U.V. Shastri17 collects nine prose passages of Harita quoted in the Mokşa-kanda of Lakşmidhara's Krtyakalpataru. These passages do not contain anything, specifically belonging to the Samkhya system,1 and hence have been ignored by modern scholars.19 The interest of Aparärka and Laksmidhara was only in Dharmasastra material. The absence of passages dealing directly with Samkhya cannot be used for ruling out their occurrence in the original text of the Harttadharmasutra. A minute analysis of the available passages does suggest that the Haritadharmasutra dealt with Samkhya material also. The passages reproduced by U.V. Shastri relate to the vanaprastha stage and the yati-dharma. In the scheme of classification envisaged by the nibandhas the Moksa-kanda is to contain provisions about the vanaprastha and the samnyasa asrama. Treatment of Yoga and the associated philosophy of Samkhya will be covered by the Moksa- kanda. The classification of topics in this kanda is to be according to the scheme of a Dharmasastra text and not a treatise on Samkhya. In the available passages there are indications of Samkhya-Yoga accounts. The first passage refers to the vanaprastha, its divisions and sub-divisions. The second passage mentions practices to be followed by an ascetic for annihilating himself (ätmanam ksapayat). The introductory remarks indicates clearly that in the preceding portion Harita had made statements about the desire of an ascetic of Samkhya and Yoga to merge himself with the Brahma."It says that, desiring emancipation (apavarga), he should retire to the forest (aranya-gamana). The fifth passage mentions the rules to be

17. Op. cit., pp. 606-7. 18. P.22, 26, 42, 52, 53, 60, 81, 82, 174. 19 A.P. Mishra, Samkhyadarsana ki aıtihāsika paramparā, p. 160, refers only to the Laghu-Hartta-smyti of the Jivananda collection, but dismisses it as without any bearing on Samkhya 20 såmkhyayogayorbhiksorbrahmalayecchapraptiva-canantaram haritah !- p.42.

Samkhya and the Haritadharmasūtra 261

followed by him. The sixth chapter discusses in detail how he is to observe (uyavahartuyam) ahimsa. The seventh passage relates to the rules for begging (bhiksa) and eating food. The seventh passage deals with the birth of desire on account of craving (samkalpat kama) and advises the control of kama by being without craving (asamkalpa niyamanam). Likewise, the eighth passage says that anger (krodha) is in the form of tamas and its control is through forbearing (ksama). The ninth passage is also significant. It discusses the various stages of dhydna and samadhi.

Harita in the Moksadharmaparva We can, hence, infer that Harita in his Dharmasutra discussed not only the rules and practice of Yoga, but also some related theoretical principles of Samkhya which could not find a place in the surviving quotations because of the nature of the nibandha work quoting from his text. The Mahabharata testifies to the high position enjoyed by Harita as a sage. He held Yudhisthira in high regard.21 He came to see Bhisma when he lay on the bed of arrows." In the Moksadharmaparva section of the Santiparva there is a chapter (278) in which Bhisma, in replying to Yudhisthira's query about the conduct, character and knowledge for attaining the position of Brahman which is beyond prakrti, narrates the ancient history (itihasam purathanam) of the account given by Harita, Harita describes the dharma for the parivrajaka asrama. According to Harita, a sage (muni) should leave his house and become an ascetic. He should remain unchanged in gain and loss and unconcerned for desires (kameşu nirapeksah). He should not see, think or speak ill, should never utter ill of others. He should not do himsa to any living being. He should have friendliness (maitrayanagatah) and never enmity (vaira). He should forbear those who speak ill of him and, without becoming angry, should speak well. The proper conduct for begging in the village and the food to be accepted are laid down. He

21 .. Vana III.26-3. 22. Mbh., XII.47.7.

262 Retrieving Samkhya History is to take up his abode in a secluded place. He is to maintain equanimity and always remain satisfied. Observing the impermanance of the material thing (bhautika) and the appearance and destruction of the bhutas, he is to keep his atman controlled (prasantatman). He is to keep the vega (on rush) of his speech, the vega of krodha (anger) of his mind, the vega of himsa and the vega of his stomach and the organ of generation (udaropastha). For those, who know, it leads to moksa, and for the ignorant it is mere effort (srama), This is the complete vehicle for emancipation (mokşayana) for the learned. He, who follows it, achieves the shining world (lokastejomayah) and he merits the highest position (antyāya kalpata).

Conclusion The teachings attributed to Harita in the Santiparva chapter have similarities with the Dharmasutra passages attributed to him in regard to the points covered and the details of the provision. The form of presentation in the present case is in verse and accounts for the two references not being closely similar. The teachings of Harita in the Santiparva are in conformity with the stage of composite Samkhya-Yoga. This account refers to an early phase of Samkhya. This is evidenced by the Santiparva itself which mentions the exposition by Harita to be an ancient history. In the introductory verse23 we have a reference to prakrti and the permanent Brahman beyond prakrti. This shows that, according to the author of the chapter, Harita was a Samkhya teacher.

23. Mbh., XI1.278.1.

14

Patañjali as a Sāmkhya Ācārya

Introduction

THE Yogasūtra of Patanjali is a masterly treatise on Yoga. Not only in India but elsewhere also scholars and followers of Yoga study the text with profound veneration. In the process Patanjali has received the highest respect. His name has become synonymous with Yoga. The Yuktidtpikd records six passages referring to Patanjali's views on Samkhya topics. As this goes against the established image of Patañjali, scholars have refused to take notice of them. The only exceptions are P. Chakravarti,' U.V.Shastri2and A.P. Mishra," who assign them to another Patanjali, different from the author of the Yogasutra. In this way they have accepted a Patanjali as a Samkhya teacher. G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya' in their recent study of admitted Patanjali to the list of Samkhya teachers.

Sources

On the Samkhya views of Patanjali U.V. Shastris has collected 1. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp, 133- 5, 290. 2 Sämkhyadarsana ka itihasa, pp. 614-29. 3. Samkhyadarsana ki aitihasika parampara, pp. 182-9. 4. Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, ed. by K. Potter, Vol. IV. pp. 129 30 Op.cit. pp. 623-4. See also A.P. Mishra, op. cit., pp. 188-9; G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 130 refer to four passages in the Yuktidlpikā.

264 Retrieving Samkhya History seven passages from the Yuktidipikā, one from the Yogasūtrabhāsya ofVyäsa, and one from Sankara's commentary on the Brahmasūtra. P. Chakravarti6 traces one passage in Padmapāda's commentary on the Prapañcasaratantra. The first passsage7 in the Yuktidipikd says that 'hence the àhamkara does not exist' is the view of Patanjali for he holds that egoism (asmi-pratyaya) is the function of mahat (intellect). The second Yuktidipika passage® is directly connected with then first. It says that Patanjali, Pancadhikarana and the Varsaganas (the followers of Vārsaganya) hold that from pradhāna is evolved mahat. It repeats the argument that egoism is the function of mahat. The third passsge,9 which refers to the various views about the source of influx when the organs act, says that, according to Patañjali, they always act from within. The seventh passage10 repeats this view in a negative manner. It says that, on account of the three-fold bhavas, the senses do not always act from within, as held by Pátañjali. The fourth passage1l says that according to Patanjali the karanas (organs) are twelve. : The fifth passage!2 referss to the view of Patanjali about.the 6. Op. cit., p. 134. 7. evam tarhi naivahamkāro vidyata iti-patañjalihi ľ - p. 32 8. mahato'smi pratyayasvarapałvabhyupagam'at.l 'patañjali- pancādhikaraņavārşaganānām pradhânāt mahānutpadyata iti ... mahato'smipratyaya-kartrtvabhyupagamat l1 -p.108. > . 9. karanānâm .. . svabhavatiurttih ... sarvā svata iti patañjalih I 10. evam tribidhabhavaparigrahat ... na sarvam sudtah patanjalivat I -pp. 148-94 ‹ 11. karaņam dvādasavidhamiti patañjalih ! - p. 132. 12. pātañjale tu sūkşmasariram yat siddhikāle pūrvam-indriyāņi bljadesam nayati; tatra tatkrtāsayavasat dudesar yatanasthānam ,ya karnāni prapya nivartate,l tatra caivam yuktasayasya karmavasādanyadutpadyate yadindriyāni bljadedsam nayati tadapi nivartate, sarlrapāte cānyadutpadyate, evamanekāni sarirāņill -p., 144. We have followed the free translation given by P. Chakravarti, op. cit., pp. 290-1.

Patañjali as a Sāmkhya Ācārya 265

migration through the subtle body (suksma-sarira). In the period of the enjoyment of the benefits of the six siddhis this body transmits the ten organs into the seed of karman, so that they are integrated with the merit and demerit of the individual, At the termination of siddhi, when death becomes inevitable, this body pushes the integrated organs so that they get in touch with the parental seed of the next birth., Simultaneously with, death the subtle body automatically disappears. The migration into the higher or lower world is determined by the merit and demerit acquired during the period of siddhi. In the next life also the individual derives a fresh subtle body through the operativeness of his karman. In this life also the process is repeated. The new subtle body transmits the organs into the seed of karman and pushes them to get in touch with the parental seed of the next birth. In this, way the series of the subtle bodies continues. The sixth passage in the Yuktidipika13 reproduces only the penultimate sentence of the preceding passage. It simply says that at the death the subtle body disappears. Again in the next life : another subtle body is created. The eighth passage, which occurs in the Yogabhāsya!4 of Vyāsa, defines dravya (substance) is the aggregate of components, which are inseparably connected with one another. The ninth passage listed by, U.V. Shastri occurs in Śankara's commentary on the Brahmasutra.1 It records an extract from the 'Yogasästra saying that Yoga is the means for the understanding of the tattvas; thus, Yoga has been accepted as auxiliary for the way tò proper realisation. Sankara does not attribute the passage to Patañjali. We have a clear reference to Yogasastra as the source. The extract does not occur in the Yogasutra and could have been

13. yattavat patanjalih, aha, - sukşmaśarirąm vinivarttate punascânyadutpadyate |- p. 145. 14 ayutasiddhāvayava-bhedanugatah samūho dravyamiti patañjalih I -III. 44. 15 yoga sastre'pi - atha tatvadarsanopayah yogah iti samyagdarsanābhyupāyatvenaiva yogo'ngikriyąte l! -- II. 1.3.

266 Retrieving Samkhya History

taken from another text on Yoga. Shastri does not spell out his argument for attributing it to Patanjali. The tenth reference to Patanjali's Samkhya view is to be found in Padmapada's commentary on the Prapancasaratantra. On the process of the descent of purusa into the womb the Prapancasara- tanta refers to a number of views. The process of the descent of the pure self into the womb of the mother along with the individual self of the father is explained by the simile of the transmission of light from one lamp to another." Padmapada says that this is the view of Patanjali, Dhanvantari and others. He adds that it is not only the individual self of the father that descends into the womb, but that of the mother also does so through her menstrual blood discharged at the time of sexual operation."7 Thus, the passage refers to Patanjali's view about the transmigration from one body to another and deals with part of the point covered in the passage no. five in the Yuktidipikā. R.S. Bhattacharya18 refers to a sentence of Patañjali quoted by Laksmidhara in his commentary on the Saundaryalahari. Here Patanjali is mentioned as bhagavat. The passage deals with the cakras. Bhattacharya does not accept it to be from the Yogasūtra of Patanjali. Its occurrence in the Samkhya work of Patanjali is equally suspect.

Works Attributed to Patanjali

There are many texts circulated under the name of Patañjali.19 Of these we do not consider here the Mahabhasya on the Astadhyāyi and the lexicon attributed to Vasuki by Hemacandra in the Abhidhana-cintamani. Likewise, we have not discussed the

16. dipād dipāntaram yatha | - I. 97. 17 dipād dipantaramiti patanjalidhanvantaryadipaksah i tat param dhama tasya piturātma kascidevam brūta | ityuttaratrānvayah 1 raktavyatikrtāditi strayātmano'pi sankrāntidarsītā l 18. An Introduction on the Yogasutra, p. 100- suadhisthane samharah sadbindukrtah 11 19. U.V. Shasti, op. eit., pp. 614-15.

Patañjali as a Samkhya Ācārya 267

redaction of the Caraka-samhita done by Patanjali and the Nidānasūtra (or Chandoviciti) attributed to Patanjali. Al-Bīrūni profusely quotes from the Book of Patanjali, which we have analysed to show that is was a famous work on Yoga composed possibly in the second century BC.20 There is a text named the Paramarthasara attributed to Patanjali."1 Its editor Suryanarayan Sharma Shukla identifies this Patanjali with the famous author of the Yogasutra. No cogent argument has been advanced in support of the view. It rests on the common name Patanjali. There is reason to believe that the Patanjali, quoted in the Yuktidipika, could also not have been the author of the Paramarthasara."1 Verse 83 of the Paramarthasara" occurs in the Yuktidipika2 also. The Yuktidipika does not attribute the verse either to the Paramarthasara of Patanjali, suggesting that the author of the Yuktidipika borrowed it from some earlier source to which the Paramarthasara was also indebted. There are major differences between Patanjali, the author of the Paramarthasāra, and Patanjali quoted in the Yuktidipika. Whereas in the Yuktidipikā Patanjali holds that the karanas are twelve in number, in the Paramärthasära they are said to be thirteen. Likewise, Patanjali as quoted in the Yuktidipika believes that there is a subtle intermediate body which is created and destroyed like the physical body, but the Paramarthasara2 says that with each purusa there is a subtle body from the beginning of the creation which lasts till the dissolution or appearance of true knowledge.

20. See Appendix III. 21. Edited by Suryanarayan Sharma Shukla. Acyuta Grantha Mala, Varanasi. Earlier Pub. Anantasayana Granthamala. The author is referred to as Adhāra or Sesa-jagadādhāra. Patanjali is regarded as the incarnation of Sesanaga. Hence Patanjali is taken to be its author. 22. U.V. Shastri, op. cit., pp. 622-3, 23. urkşāgrâccyutavādo yadvadanicchannara kşitau patati l tadvad gunapurusajno'nicchannapi kevali bhavati ll 24 With the reading prattyeua in place of ksitau patati on p. 25. 25 Verses 11-13. 17

268 Retrieving Samkhya History

Bhattacharya on' Patanjali Only as a Yoga Writer R.S. Bhattacharya oppose the view that there was another Patañjali, different from the author of the Yogasutra, who was a Samkhya teacher. He does not consider the evidence of the sentences in the Yuktidtpika recording the distinguishing views of Patañjali. The reason adduced by him is that 'the drift of all these sentences is not quite clear to us'.26 This is a virtual admission by Bhattacharya of the force of the argument in favour of Patañjali being a Samkhya teacher. The sentences are not ambiguous and clearly 'state Patañjali's special views on certain points in Sāmkhya system. Bhattacharya has failed to trace parallels of these views in the Yogasutra. We have an independent confirmation of the authenticity of the Yuktidtpika quotation in at least one case. Passasge no. 7 listed above, presents in some detail Patanjali's view, about the transmigration of individual through subtle body. "In the Prapañcasaratàntra we find several views on the subject. Padmapada, in-his commentary says that one of these views is held by Patanjali and Dhanvantari. He adds more details emphasising a particular point in the yiew as foundìn the Yuktidtpikā. Padmapāda had no need to produce the actual words of Patanjali and all the details, but the description does not leave any doubt about the identity of the view in the two references. " Bhattacharya takes points to prove that Patañjali's view about dravya, as quoted in the Vydsabhasyd; cannot prove that there was asecond Patañjali who was a Samkhya teacher. He admits that the 'passage defining dravya is not fountl in the Yogasutra; nor is the term dravya used in it. But, he argues, the idea of aggregate is in perfect accordance with the view-point of the Yogasutra. According to him, the sentence under reference was part of the oral teachings of Patanjali, the author of the Yogasutra, which could not be included in the original text. He offers another explanation suggesting that Patanjali himself wrote a urtti on his-Yogasūtra and the present sentence occurred in it. His alterhative suggestion is that a person of the Patanjali gotra, who was'a follower of the

26. Op. cit., p. 100.

Patañjali as a Sāmkhya Ācārya 269

oga philosophy, composed a work on Yogasutra which contained the sentence quoted in the Vyāsabhāsya. In his keenness to contróvert the Samkhya associations of the extract and to establish its connections with the Yoga tradition, Bhattacharya adopts stands which are self-defeating, besides being totally conjectural. The sentence defining dravya in the characteristic manner does not occur in the Yogasutra. To suggest that it was part of the oral teachings of Patañjali which could not be included in the text even at a later stage is highly presumptuous. Likewise, the suggestion that the sentence was part of the urtti composed by Patañjali himself is equally speculative, without any evidence in its support. To accept the sentence as a part of the urtti we have to trace a context in the Yogasutra were the particular. extract has a relevance. The second explanation offered by Bhattacharya virtually concedes.the point that the Yogasutra and the work in which the sentence occurred were two different works written by two people belonging to the Patanjali gotra. This amounts to a tacit admission of the basic point which Bhattacharya proposes to criticise. It is clear that he is not prepared to accept the obvious interpretation of the extract as belonging to a text by a Patanjali different from the author of the Yogasutra. The evidence of the Yuktidipika makes a case for this Patañjali being a Samkhya teacher.

Date of Patañjali There is no definite indication about the date of Patanjali. The reference,to Patañjali and his views in the Yuktidtpika suggest that he was among the early Samkhya teachers. The Yüktidipika27 includes him in the list of Sämkhya teachers belonging to the gap between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna. There are eleven names in this list, but the position of a teacher in it is noindication ofhis comparative chronology. We cannot be sure of the years to,be assigned to each teacher. The possibility cannot be ruled out that some of the teachers were contemporaries. But,in any case, it is significant that in this list of Patanjali appears along with'teachers, such as Pancādhikaraņa and Vārsaganya, who were senior names in the history of Samkhya. 27. P. 175.

270 Retrieving Samkhya History We have discussed the evidence for the date of Pañcasikha.28 In the post-Pañcasikha period, if we take into account the possible dates for Pancādhikaraņa, Hārīta and Vāsaganya we may place Patañjali, the Samkhya teacher, in the bracket 500-400 BC. G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya29 place Patanjali along with Paurika and Pañcādhikarana in the time-bracket of AD 100-300. We have pointed out that this errs on being late and have suggested 500-450 Bc for Pañcādhikarana and Paurika.30 The occurrence of a quotation from Patanjali in the Yogabhasya of Vyāsa does not mark any improvement over the testimony of the Yuktidipika, because of the late date of Vyāsa. But, U.V. Shastri,3: who places Vyasa very early, in any case earlier than Patanjali, the Samkhya teacher, the author of the Mahabhasya and the redactor of Caraka, explains the sentence as added on the margin by a later reader of the Vyasabhasya, which was later incorporated in it by a subsequent copyist. Thus, Shastri does not considér the evidence of the Vyāsabhasya to have any bearing on the date of Patañjali, the Sämkhya teacher. Though we do not agrée with Shastri about the comparative date of the Vyāsabhasya and the interpretation of the presence of the extract from Patañjali in it, it is not of any use in improving upon the evidence of the Yuktidipika in fixing the date of Patañjali. Shastri32 favours the date second century Bc for Patañjali; the Samkhya teacher. He considers him to be different from the author of the Yogasutra, but identifies him with the author of the Mahabhasya and the redactor of the Caraka-samhita. This view is

28. See supra chapter 7, under section "Date of Arada". He was later than Asuri but earlier than Jaigisavya and Devala and was a senior contemporary of Arada and Janaka, which may favour the time bracket c. 700-650 BC. 29. Op. cit., pp. 9-13. 30. See supra chapter 8, under sections "Paurik - Date of Paurika" and "Pancadhikaraņa - Date of Pancadhikaraņa". 31. Op. cit., p. 629; fn.1. 32. Op. cit., pp. 626-9.

Patañjali as a Samkhya Ācārya 271

based on two assumptions - first, Patanjali, the author of the Yogasūtra, is different from Patanjali, the Sāmkhya teacher, and second; Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhasya, cannot be identified with the author of the Yogasutra: Hence, Patanjali, the Samkhya teacher; is identified with the author of the Mahabhasya. This, according to Shastri, was the basis for the tradition identifying Patañjali as an authority in three disciplines of spiritualism, medicine and grammar. We do not propose to' discuss here the ancient tradition identifying the three Patañjalis, the authors of texts in three different areas. This much, however, is generally conceded that Patañjali, the author of the Yogasutra, cannot be identified with the author of the Mahabhasya. About the identification of Patañjali, the author of a text on philosophy (manas) in the tradition there is no unanimity among scholars. The case of the author of the Yogasūtra is not favoured by modern scholars. Elsewhere,33 we have suggested the possibility that he is the author of the text on Yoga quoted by Al-Birūni.

Patañjali on Samkhya and Yoga Here we concentrate on the problem of the identification of the Sāmkhya teacher Patañjali and consider other related issues from this angle. U.V. Shastri, A.P. Mishra and P. Chakravarti, who distinguish between Patañjali, the Samkhya teacher, and the author of the Yogasutra, depend on the non-availability of the Yüktidipika extracts in the Yogasutra. We have seven extracts in the Yuktidtpika which cover four points in Samkhya philosophy: the evolution of mahat from pradhana but without the intermediacy of ahamkara; the number of karanas being only twelve; the senses always acting from within, without an influx of impetus from outside; and the transmigration of individual from one body to another through a subtle body. If we had a larger number of extracts on a few more topics, the comparison would have been more convincing.

33. See Appendix III.

• 272 Retrieving Sämkhya History

Wesuggest that the association of Patanjali with both Samkhya and Yoga does not necessarily mean that there were two Patañjalis. Samkhya and Yoga are two allied systems. In an earlier stage in the history of the development of Sämkhya they were fused together to form a single unit. The exposition of the Samkhya system by many thinkers, such as Yajnavalkya and Vasistha, presented as old narratives (itihasam puratanam) in the Mahābhārata, contains an account of both Samkhya and Yoga principles. The same teacher could claim to belong to both Samkhya and Yoga. This seems to have been the case with Patanjali. He was essentially a Sāmkhya teacher. At a later stage in his life he concentrated on Yoga. Thus, the Samkhya and Yoga views of Patanjali do not imply two different philosophers having the same name. They can be explained as referring to two phases in the development of the philosophical ideas of the same person. Patañjali possibly did not compose a major work on Sāmkhya. He did not establish a separate Samkhya school of his followers. With the many early Samkhya teachers and their works the Sämkhya views of Patanjali did not have much chance of surviving in their full form. The rejection of his views by later Samkhya thinkers, who gave the system a standard form, was effective in pushing his Samkhya yiews into oblivion. Only a few ofthese, which were significantly unique, survived the long course of time. The greater prestige of his classic composition on Yoga was another reason for his Samkhya views not receiving primacy. In this connection the views of S.N. Dasgupta are very significant, He points out that the Maitrayani, Śvetasvatara and 1

Katha Upanisads of Krsna Yajurveda, where we find reference.to Yoga methods, are the only ones where we find clear references also to the Samkhya tenets, though the Samkhya and Yoga ideas do not appear there as related to each other or associated as parts of the same system. But there is a remarkable passage in the Maitrayanl in the conversation between Sakyayana and Brhadratha where we find that the Samkhya metaphysics was offered in some quarters to

34. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 227-9.

Patañjali as a Sāmkhya Ācārya 273

expľain the validity of the Yoga processes, and it seems therefore that the association and grafting of the Samkhya metaphysics on the Yoga system as its basis, was the work of the followers of this school of ideas which was subsequently systematised by Patañjali. Later, in dealing with Yoga, Dasgupta refers to the Patañjala school of Samkhya as forming its subject and adds that Patanjali was probably the most notable person for he not only collected the different forms of Yoga practices, and gleaned the diverse ideas which were or could be' associated with the Yoga, but grafted them all on the Samkhya metaphysics, and gave them the form in which they have been handed down to us. Vācaspati and Vijñānabhikșu, the two great commentators on the Vyasabhasya, agree with us in holding that Patanjali was not the founder of the Yoga, but an editor. Analytic study of the sütras also brings home the conviction that the sutras do not show any original attempt, but a masterly and systematiccompilation which was also supplemented by fitting contributions. The systematic manner in which the first three chapters are written by way of definition and classification shows that ,the materials were already in existence and that Patañjali 1 .only systematised them. There was no missionising zeal, no attempt to overthrow the doctrines of other systems, except as far as they might come in, by way of explaining the system. Patañjali is not even anxious to establish the 1 system, but he is only engaged in systematising the facts as he.had them. Thus, we see that Patañjali was essentially a Samkhya teacher. In ·those times Samkhya and Yoga were often taken together. The Samkhya school, to which Patañjali belonged, gave Yoga a systematic basis'by strengthening its metaphysical aspect of Samkhya and also systematising ånd consolidating Yoga. Patanjali contributed to both Samkhya and Yoga. His contributions to Yoga outclassed his earlier expositions of Samkhya. Patanjali, the Samkhya teacher, and Patañjali, the Yoga author, are not two different persons, but

274 Retrieving Samkhya History

two aspects, or rather phases, of the life and activities of one and the same person.35

Chronological Consideration for the Identity of Patanjali, the Sāmkhya Ācārya and Yogasūtrakāra

The identity of the two Patanjalis is not vitiated by chronological considerations. Earlier scholars, in the absence of a certainty about the date for Patanjali, the Samkhya teacher, and Patanjali, the Yoga writer, used the argument to differentiate between the two Patañjalis. But, a careful consideration shows that chronological compatibility is in favour of identifying the two Patanjalis. We have shown above that Patanjali, the Samkhya teacher, may be placed in the rough time-bracket of 500-400 Bc. The date for the composition of the Yogasutra is difficult to determine. On the basis of the equation with the author of the Mahabhasya, scholars often placed Patanjali, the author of the Yogasutra, in the second century Bc.36 Earlier scholars, who rejected this equation, placed Patañjali after the Mahabhāsya.37 R.S. Bhattacharya, though frankly admitting that there is nothing in the Yogasütra to help us determine its date with a considerable amount of precision,3 places Patañjali earlier than 500 Bc.39 Bhattacharya mentions several indirect considerations for an early date: the Pātañjala sākhā of the Sámaveda, Patanjali as a gotra name in the Matsya Purana, Patanjali being mentioned by

35. Bhagavata Purdna, though a late Purâna, mentions Patanjali in its list of the siddhas along with Asuri(VI.15.14)-asurih sa-patanjalih This may refer to a tradition which clubs Patanjali with earlier Samkhya teachers 36. Max Muller, Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, p. 410; Cultural Heritage of India, Vol. III, p: 14; S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, I, p. 212; Kane, History of Dharmasastra, V. p. 1399 37. Woods, Yoga Philosophy, Introduction, p. xix (fourth or fifth century). Jacobi, JAOS, XXI (later than AD 450); Keith, Samkhya System, p. 70 (later than the third century). 38 Op. cit., p. 109 39 Op. eit., p. 112.

Patañjali as a Sâmkhya Åcārya 275 Katyāyana, some Tripitaka passages presuming sūtras of the Yogasütra, some older Puranas in chapters, which are definitely not later, containing passages which are based on the sutras of the Yogasütras, and the peculiar usage of certain terms. But the absence of a reference to Patanjali by the Buddha and the early Pali literature and the silence of the Moksadharmaparva to his views on Yoga will suggest that Patanjali did not acquire celebrity in the earlier period. Hence a date a little later, between 500 and 400 Bc will appear more reasonable. Thus, indirect evidence points to the same rough period for Patanjali in both Samkhya and Yoga traditions, suggesting that both refer to the same person.

15

Sāmkhya Schools

Classification into Four Streams H.S. JosHi has attempted a reconstruction of Samkhya-Yoga philosophy in terms of its teachers and schools.' He treats Samkhya and Yoga as forming a unity, but is alive to their separate traditions. He gives primacy to Sämkhya, but assigns separate sections to Yoga, its teachers, texts and schools. Of the two parts of his monograph, the first entitle History' is devoted to the history of teachers. The second part is termed as Sambhrānta Samkhya. Sambhrānta Sāmkhya is not a paraphrase of Classical Sāmkhya, sambhränta here signifies 'expanding' and 'spreading'. This part discusses the forms Samkhya assumed in course of its spatial and chronological expansion. In both the parts the grouping has been termed as streams (dharas). The first speaks of four streams," but the classification is based neither on strictly chronological grounds, though a claim is made to that effect, nor on views or principles. The names of teachers in the four streams do not represent schools or systems. They are grouped rather mechanically and involve a confused overlapping. The first stream begins with Kapila and includes such teachers as were connected with the line of followers after him or the chronological sequence thereafter, namely Āsuri, Vodhu,

1. Sämkhyayogadarsana ka jirnoddhara. 2. Op. cit., p. 40.

278 Retrieving Samkhya History Pancasikha, Jaīgisavya, Āvațya, Vārsaganya (Varșa, Vrșa or Vrsagana) and Vyadi. The second stream consists of teachers who were contemporaries of teachers other than Kapila in the first list. These are Yaska, Ulūka, Vrddha-Parasara, Srikrsna, Bhișma, Arjuna and Suka. The third list mentions Vedic and Puranic sages and philosophers. These include Hiranyagarbha. Brahma, Rudra and Manu and the progenies of Brahma or Manu who are represented as expounding Samkhya in the Mahabharata and the Puranas. Other names are Suka, Ātreya, Asita, Devala, Ārstișeņa, Parāśara, Vyāsa, Punarvasu, Raibhya, Vāmadeva, Gautama, Akșapāda, Janaka, Sulabhā, Karāla Janaka, Āsvalāyana, Kušika, Vatsa, Ikşvāku, Vivasvān and Kanāda, In this list the names, other than those of Vedic sages and philosophers are Suka, Aksapāda, Kaņāda, Sulabhā, Āsvalāyana, Vatsa, Raibhya and Punarvasu. The fourth stream consists of teachers, contemporaries of Isvarakrsna, either as senior or as junior. The names included in this list are Markandeya, Patañjali, Vindhyavāsa, Agnivesa (?), Rudraka, Kumāra Gaya and Arāț. The 'contents', which presents a rather detailed account of the chapterisation in the book, gives a slightly different scheme of classification. Here the second stream consists ofonly Garga, Yaska and Uluka. The third stream is divided into two sub-groups. The first sub-group includes Vrddha-Parasara, Krsna, Bhisma and Sukra (?) of the second stream, along with Asita-Devala, Ārstisena, Parasara and Vyasa of the third stream. The second sub-group is that of Vedic-Puranic teachers and includes the names of Bhrgu, Marici, Angirā, Pracetā, Kratu, Sanatkumāra, Sanātana, Sana, Sanaka, Sanandana, Pulastya, Kasyapa, Nārada, Vasistha, Ikşvāku and Atri and retains Suka of the second stream. These new names are evidently those of the progenies of Brahma. Likewise, the fourth stream is made to include Aksapāda, Kaņāda, Kusika, Āsvalāyana and Vatsa of the third stream also. The details in chapter 3 of the book follow this scheme of the contents. Itis not correct to treat these four lists of teachers as representing four streams, branches or schools of Samkhya. They are four convenient groups, but without any consistent basis or criterion.

Samkhya Schools 279

The first group consists of recognised Samkhya teachers, the second of teachers who were contemporaries of Samkhya philosophers coming after Kapila, and the fourth of teachers who were senior or junior contemporaries of Isvarakrsna. The third list is a mixed one containing mythological names and Vedic and Puranic sages and personalities associated with Samkhya. In the second part of the book, chapters 11 to 15 present the systems or schools of Samkhya-Yoga classified as five streams (dharas), which are further subdivided into sub-branches (upasakhas), Of these, the fifth stream relates to Yoga philosophers, The remaining four refer to systems of Samkhya philosophy. They are classified on the basis of their characteristic principles.

Branches of Sāmkhya The first three streams are designated as Ahorātra-sakha, Kala- sakha and Atri-sakha, whereas the fourth one is named as the Pradhanastambha. These are further subdivided intosub-branches, four of Ahoratra, seven of Kala, five of Atri, and twenty of the Pradhāna.

AHORĀTRA ŠĀKHĀ The first stream expounds its principle in terms of creation and dissolution termed as ahoratra, the night referring to the stage when the prakrti (Brahma) is in equilibrium, whereas the day signifies the agitation of prakrti and the beginning of the process of creation or evolution. This stream is based on the line srisca te ca laksmi patnyavahoratre. The first sub-branch of this stream is found first in the Parisista in the Nirukta1 of Yaska. The second sub- branch is represented by the Ahoratrayoga in the Gita.' The Durgäspatasati in the Markandeyapurana expounds the principles of the third sub-branch in its section entitled Prādhānika rahasya. Chapter 1 in the Manusmrti presents the principles of the fourth 3. yuyam sahasraparyantamahanyad brahmano vidih I rātrim yugashasranatam tehoratra vide janah I1 4. X.12-27.

280 Retrieving Samkhya History

sub-branch. The fifth sub-branch finds expression in the Vayu Purana.5

KĀLA ŠĀKHĀ

The second stream includes kala in the list of tattvas. The earliest acceptance of kala as a tattua is found in the Svetasvatara Upanisad. The first sub-branch of this school, as expounded in the Mahábharata,7 names purușa as Visņu and prakrti as kāla, and. without recognising mahat, traces manas and ahamkara directly from buddhi. The second sub-branch (as expounded in the Mahābharata®) mentions prakrti in the place of kāla, naming it as avyakta also. It describes kala as the cause of the transformation of all the tattvas and objects. It believes in six mahabhūtas, but does not name the sixth one. The third sub-branch is presented by Devala in the Mahabharata." Here kala is mentioned as distinct from both prakrti and purusa. The teachers of this sub-branch are named as bhuta-cintaka and adhyatma-cintaka. This sub-branch designates the tattvas as rasis. It numbers the mahabhutas as eight, adding kala, bhava and abhava to the well-known five, and, parallel to them, numbers the jnanendriyas also as eight adding citta, manas and buddhi to the well known five ones. It numbers the tattvas variously as sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, twenty and twenty- five by adding new ones. In its scheme the inclusion of ūsma as a tattva (eighteenth) is very significant. The fourth sub-branch is described in the Kürma Purana.1 Its teachers are referred to as tattva-cintaka and brahmavädt. According toit, both kala-pradhana and purusa emanate from avyakta, kala which represents the connection between two events (samyogaja), is described as anādi. The fifth sub-branch, recorded in the Visnu Purana,11 was expounded

5. Chapter 5. 6. kālam tathānye parimulyamanāh 7. XII.210.8-46 8. XII.213 (221). 9. XII 281 (275) 10. Chapter 2, part 2 11. 1.2.27.

Samkhya Schools 281

by Parasara to Maitreya. According to it, in the stage of equilibrium in prakrti, purușa remains aloof from it, and is termed as kāla. The sixth sub-branch is found in the Bhagavata Purana" and is communicated by Kapila1 to Devahūti. Here kala is mentioned as the twenty-fifth tattva, which causes stirrings in the prakrti in its stage of equilibrium. The seventh sub-branch is also found in the Bhagavata Purana.14 It accepts a number of new tattvas, such as dravya, karma, kāla, svabhāuya, jiva and brahma or Vāsudeva. ATRI-SIDDHĀNTĪYA ŠĀKHĀ The third stream is designated as atri-siddhantiya. It investigated into the functioning of the internal and external organs. It is found mainly in the texts on Ayurveda. Atri was the earliest authority in Åyurveda and is included in the list of Samkhya teachers. The first sub-branch of this stream is recorded in the Nirukta. According to it, by following the path of dharma, anybody can become Isvara or become immortal; getting involved in passions a man suffers repeated births and deaths. The second sub-branch made remarkable advancements in the area of panca-mahabhūtas, physics and botany. It expounded the principle of life even in plants.15 The third sub-branch finds a detailed exposition in the two Samhita texts associated with the names of Caraka and Suśruta. MUKHYASTAMBHĪYA ŠĀKHĀ The mainstream of Samkhya is termed as mukhya-stambhiya, pradhana-stambhiya or kapiliya. It covers all the important expressions of Samkhya principles. Joshi lists twenty sub-branches of the mainstream.

12 III.16.26: 111.26.17-30. 13 Joshi, op. cit., pp. 219-20 takes this Kapila to be different from Kapila, the Samkhya philosopher. 14. 11.5.14; II.6,22-31. 15. Mbh., XII 184.10-18.

282 Retrieving Samkhya History Sub-branches The first three sub-branches are indicated when Sanatkumara refers to the views mentioning the number of tattuas as twenty- three or twenty-four, whereas he himself takes them to be twenty- five.16 The fourth sub-branch is represented by Yajnavalkya who mentions the tattvas to be twenty-six." The fifth sub-branch mentions the order of creation as aksara, kham, vayu, jyoti, jala, jagati and jagat,18 without assigning any place to purusa, brahma, mahat or ahamkara. The six sub-branch1 presents three cycles of evolution and dissolution. Here we find four terms akşara, jnana, pañca akrti and sūksma, which are used in a special sense, not found elsewhere. In the third cycle the term atma signifies purusa. This sub-branch presents an elaborate order of tattuas. The seventh sub-branch20 is characterised by a special terminology about purusa. Mahapurușa is its twenty-fourth tattva, mahapurușa-vaikrta or mahadeva is the twenty-fifth tattva, and bhagavan (purusottama) is the twenty-sixth tattua. Its order of evolution is also distinctive. The eighth sub-branch21 designates the tattvas as bhavas and describes all of them as evolutes of svabhava. Allied to this is the ninth sub-branch,22 which holds the order of evolution to be mahābhūta, cetanā, ātmā, manas (ahamkāra) and buddhi. The tenth sub-branch23 is also associated with the svabhavavadins. The order of evolution according to this sub-branch is indriyas, pañca- tanmatras, manas (ahamkara) and buddhi. Buddhi is also described as dtma in human beings. In all these sub-branches no place is assigned to müla-prakrti and purusa. 16. Joshi op. cit., p. 228. Mbh., XII 165.26-27 cannot be traced in the Gita Press edn. 17. Mbh., XII 318.72-84 18. Ibid., XII.200-01 canot be traced in the Gita Press edn. 19. Ibid., XII.202.11, 12, 22, 24. 20 Ibid XIII.168.1-3, 25, 28 21 Ibid., XII.222,23, 25. 22 Ibid., XII.237.45-6 23. Ibid., XII.246.3-4

Samkhya Schools 283

The eleventh sub-branch was expounded by Vasistha." It speaks of two types of creations: bhuta-sarga, relating to pañca- tanmatras and panca-mahabutas, and bhautika-sarga concerning five karmendriyas and five jnanendriyas. It assigns the highest place to hiranyagarbha, also designated as buddhi, mahat and viranji. Joshi prefers to designate it as hiranyagarbha sub-branch. The twelfth branch2 resulted from the dressing-up of Samkhya, in the garb of Vaisnavism. According to it, in the beginning there wasonly jñana, from which came out pradhana, triguna mahamaya, or vaisnavi-prakrti, which is also designated as svabhāva. The thirteenth sub-branch, as known from the Manusmrti," represents the most developed form ofSamkhya-Yoga. According to it, in the beginning there was only darkness, which was the state of equilibrium. First emerged the Svayambhu (purusa), who created water, in which he sowed seeds which became the golden egg. From it emerged Brahma, who divided the egg into two parts. The order ofevolution is buddhi, manas (trigunātmaka), ahamkāra, tanmātra, mahābhūta, mana, jñānendriyas and karmendriyas. The fourteenth sub-branch also represents a developed stage and is found in the Vayu Purana.28 The dark stage is termed as pradhana and prakrti. From it emergence mahat, variously named as manas, mahat, mati, brahmā, purah, buddhi, khyāti, iśvara, prana, citti, smrti, samvid and vipuri. The three gunas develop in it and are termed as linga, The ksetrajna resides in it. When the rajas guna is predominant, ahamkara is evolved, and when the tamas guna is predominant, panca-tanmatras are evolved from which come out panca-mahabhūtas.

24. Mbh., XII.302.18, 25-8 25 Op. cit., p. 233. He points out that the term hiranyagarbha, which signified a Vedic deity, was also used for buddhitattua, but the Puranic writers identified him with Brahma Viranji. 26 Mbh., XII.238.17-21. 27. I.5-20. 28 III.4, 9-11.

284 Retrieving Samkhya History The fifteenth sub-branch is recorded in the Brahma Purana. It presents a detailed account of the developed system. It is expounded by Vasistha to Karala Janaka. It mentions buddhi- tattva as the parama-tattva and the atma-tattva. All the tattuas are characterised by several gunas and each has its own vidyā. The sixteenth sub-branch is found in the Devibhagavata Purana. Here also the Samkhya-Yoga system is superimposed by Vaisnava terminology. The Purana gives many names for prakrti; tapas, tamas, jadatā, jñāna, máyā, pradhāna, prakrti, sakti, ajā, citta and samuitta. The creation is said to be natural and automatic. In the beginning there was only citta. The Devi claims to be citta and, in conjunction with purusa, produces ahamkara and the subsequent evolutes. Avidyā is also described as māyā and sattvātmikā. Isvara, when reflected in it, is called jiua. The seventeenth sub-branch, as traced in the Mahabharata," has a distinctive character. Here thegunas of the panca-mahabhūtas are said to be six, murti being the sixth, though in actual enumeration only four are named. The tattvas include four mahabhūtas and six gunas, with citta as the eleventh and buddhi as the twelfth. This sub-branch omits ākasa as a tattva and salida as a guņa. The eighteenth sub-branch, found in the Kūrma Purana,31 has been termed by Joshi as Mahesvara Samkhya-Yoga. It is presented by Śiva himself. The order of the tattvas, in an ascending sequence, is indriyas, manas, ahamkāra, mahat, avyakta, purușa, prāna, uyoma, agni (Siva or Iavara). The nineteenth sub-branch is found in the Buddhacarita32 of Asvaghosa. It is presented by Arad (Arada). The Samkhya philosophers are designated as dtma-cintakas. Purusa or átmā is termed as ksetrajna and also as uyakta, as distinguished from auyakta. Ajñana, karma and trsnā are the three causes of birth.

29 235.16; 238.2, 4-5; 242.82; 243.2, 4-6; 262.83 30 XII.219.12, 34. 31 (A.S.S) Vol. 2. p. 463. 32. XII.17-39.

Samkhya Schools 285

There are five causes of avidya; vipratyaya, ahamkára, samdeha, abhisamplava, avisesa and anupaya and six effects of it: tama, moha, mahamoha, tamisra, avapata and andhatamisra. The system subscribes to the principle of satkaryavada. The twentieth sub-branch is traced in the Agni Purana." According to it, Brahma entered purusa and prakți, which was followed by an explosion in mahat, and ahamkara appeared as an evolute. The creation which followed is of three types, vaikariha, taijasa and bhūtadi.

Evaluation of the Scheme of Classification

Joshi has not indicated the rationale for the classification into streams and their sub-branches. There is no uniform ground of classification even of the four streams. The first stream in identified as subscribing to the principle of creation and dissolution termed as day and night (ahoratra). The second stream is characterised by its acceptance of kala as a tattva. The third stream is not distinguished in terms of its principles, but for its occurring in Ayurvedic texts, which are believd to have originated with Atri. The fourth stream is designated as the main, principal or Kapila stream. Its distinguishing features are not indicated. Though Joshi lists twenty sub-branches of it, he does not take cognizance of the variations in principles associated with Samkhya teachers from Asuri to Isvarakrsna. The commentaries on the Samkhyakarikd record a wide range of views on several important points in Samkhya philosophy. These could have represented schools or branches and sub-branches of Samkhya. Joshi lists the twenty sub-branches on the basis of accounts found in the Mahabharata, the Puranas (Vayu, Brahma, Devibhagavata, Kurma and Agni), Manusmrti and Buddhacarita. The sub-branches are identified with the help of varying criteria, for example, the number of tattvas, terminology, order of evolutes, name of narrator, Vaisnava influence, and the extent of the elaboration of the system. It can be seen that, if the

aa. (A.S.S) chapter 18, p. 40.

286 Retrieving Samkhya History type of criteria adopted in the case of the first three streams is applied to the sub-branches under the fourth stream, some of these can also be conveniently grouped as streams, for example, svabhávavāda stream, and Vaisnava stream. If a system appears in several sources in slightly varying form of development, the references represent one stream only and are not to be interpreted as indicating different branches or sub-branches. This holds good for the sub-branches listed under the streams of ahoratra siddhanta and Atri-siddhanta also, Likewise, a few sub-branches in the fourth stream are described as developed or elaborate. This cannot be the ground for labelling them as different sub-branches. The distinction is to be made only on the grounds of some distinguishing principles, the use of a special terminology, and the role of tattuas. In identifying the streams and their sub-branches one point is to be kept in mind. If a text under study proposes to expound Samkhya principles, then only we can accept accounts in it as representing schools and sub-branches of Samkhya. In the Mahabharata we have several undoubted references to the exposition of Samkhya principles, in some cases as the utterances of known Samkhya authorities. It is necessary to differentiate between a school of Samkhya and the adoption of Samkhya principles by other systems. Thus, if in the Manusmrti, Gita or any Purana we have accounts, which have some parallels to Sāmkhya principles, with also some deviations from them, we are not to interpret them as referring to schools of Samkhya, but as evidence of Samkhya influence in other spheres of thought. There is a basic difficulty in identifying the schools of Samkhya. For this we require an account of the main principles of these schools. But the available sources do not provide the necessary evidence. Generally we find a brief allusion to some important views on a particular point. It is only in a very limited case that a few passages refer to the views of a given Samkhya teacher.

Eighteen Samkhya Schools J. Takakusu3 points out that, according to Chinese tradition, there 34. "A Study of Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu", JRAS, 1905, p. 49.

Samkhya Schools 287

were eighteen Samkhya schools. The Chinese testimony is based on the authority of Kuei-chi, a pupil of Hsuan Tsang, who belonged to the later part of seventh century AD. In his commentary on his teacher's treatises Kuei-chi says that there were eighteen Samkhya schools or groups. Takakusu translates the relevant passage to mean. "The Samkhya school was formerly split up into eighteen groups, the head of which was 'Ba-li-sha', meaning 'Rain'. His associates were all called the Rain-host'(Varsaganya)."The Chinese source does not name these schools, nor does it specify their distinguishing principles. E.H. Johnston5 suggests that eighteen may well be a round number, but argues that Indian evidence would support the statement. No Indian text confirms the tradition about eighteen schools of Samkhya. Johnston points out that Vyasa, in his commentary on the Yogasutra,35 mentions eight theories on the subject of the reason for the union between purusa and prakrti. In support of his view Johnston refers to the schools of Pancasikha and Varsagaņya Samkhya Schools Identified by Kushwaha The testimony of Kuei-chi leaves no doubt that several Samkhya schools were recognised in the seventh century AD. Usha Kushwaha3 confirms the historicity of the tradition about eighteen Samkhya schools with the help of the Puranas, especially the Bhagavata Purana. She presents a list of twenty-one schools named after the number of the tattva they accept as ekatattvavadi, tritattvavādi, etc, the others subscribing to four, five, six, seven, nine, eleven, thirteen, sixteen, seventeen, twenty-three, twenty-four, twenty- five, twenty-six, twenty-eight, thirty, thirty-three, twenty-six, thirty- seven or fifty-one tattvas. The Bhagavata Purana in Chapter XI.22 indicates thirteen schools. Those advocating twenty-three, twenty- eight, thirty and thirty-three tattvas are mentioned on the evidence respectively of Bhagavata Purana, III.6.1-2, XI.19,14, XI.24.1-8

35. Early Samkhya, p. 2. 36. II.23. 37 Samkhyadarsana aur dyurveda, pp. 3-6.

288 Retrieving Samkhya History and 11.5.18-31. The three schools referring to one, six and twenty- three tattvas are listed on the basis of the Caraka-samhita. Śarirasthana, chapter 1. The two schools advocating thirty-six and fifty-one tattvas are identified on the evidence of the Siva Purana. It is to be noted that no ancient text offers a consolidated list of all these schools. In most of the cases the appellations are not mentioned in the original texts. Usha Kushwaha coins the names after calculating the number of tattvas mentioned in the passage. In many cases the texts do not refer to any connection between the enumeration to the tattvas and the Samkhya system. Further, the basis of the distinction among the schools is just the mechanical fact of the number of tattvas. From the commentaries on the Samkhyakarika we learn that there were sharp differences on several important issues in the Samkhya principles, but they are not taken into account in the formation of the schools as determined by U. Kushwaha. But, this does not mean that we deny the existence of Samkhya schools. They are indicated in ancient sources, but it is difficult to trace them, fix their designations, and determine their characteristic views:

Frauwallner on Schools Frauwallner admits that Samkhya as a philosophical system was split into many schools. But he actually mentions only three of them. According to him, of these the most important was the philosophical school of Samkhya in its narrow sense. He, however, regards even Pancasikha, who stands at the head of this school, to be no less shadowy than Kapila and Asuri. In the classical time of the system he places decisive names, Vrsagana, Vārșagaņa, Varșaganya, and Vindhyavāsī, a late representative of the school, naming Madhava as the last of the olden times. Frauwallner names the school of the Classical Yoga as the second direction of the Samkhya school and envisages a third representing a Tantric tradition direction headed by Pancadhikaraņa. Yoga is closely connected with Samkhya. They are sometimes described as two aspects of the same system and as being

Samkhya Schools 289

complimentary. But, the two have their own spheres of emphasis. They are by no means identical, nor can one be described as a branch of the other. No doubt there were teachers who presented the two systems jointly representing a distinct Samkhya-Yoga school. Frauwallner is not justified in postulating a Tantric direction of Samkhya as a third school of Samkhya. This is based on a late tradition referring to Pancadhikarana as a Tantrika. As we have shown, the term tantrika is not used in the popular sense of one following the Tantric system. Tantra here signifies a Samkhya exposition. Pancadhikarana is thus mentioned here as a Samkhya teacher who presented his views in the form of a Tantra. Thus, Frauwallner has not tried to identify the schools in Samkhya system. He includes all the Samkhya teachers from Pancasikha to Madhava as representing the main Samkhya system. He does not mention the sub-schools in Samkhya by grouping the teachers.

Sāmkhya Lineage of Iśvarakrsna Isvarakrsna traces the lineage of the Samkhya teachers from its first expounder Kapila. He names Āsuri as the disciple of Kapila and Pancasikha as the disciple of Asuri. He does not name the Sāmkhya philosophers who followed Pancasikha, but implies a vast literature and a wide variety ofviews. The fact that Isvarakrsna confines himself to only the first three Samkhya philosophers and asserts that his formulation is faithful to the earlier exposition made by Pancasikha shows that he definitely differed from many prevailing accounts of Samkhya. Possibly, there were several traditions and Isvarakrsna attempted to revive the lineage of Pancasikha, though he made some modifications in the process. Isvarakrsna, who introduced an element of standardisation is responsible, to a very large extent, for wiping out the memories of the earlier schools. Isvarakrena mentions only three names, but evidently the wide period separating him from Pancasikha witnessed a long line of Samkhya teachers, who may have belonged to different schools.

290 Retrieving Samkhya History The YuktidipikaM very effectively projects it by remarking that as the Samkhya system was propounded by Kapila in the beginning. it is not possible to delineate even in hundreds of thousands of years the lineage of its teachers, as is done in the case of other Sastras. Evidently the long line of eminent Samkhya teachers is expected to have expounded a wide range of views, and not to repeat monotonously a set an fixed system of thought.

Sämkhya Lineage between Pancasikha and Iśvarakrsna For the lineage of teachers between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna the Yuktidipikd mentions the names of Harita, Buddhali, Kairata, Paurika, Rşabhesvara, Pancādhikaraņa, Patanjali, Vārșagaņya, Kaundinya and Muka(?). A lacuna in the manuscript of the text before the name of Harita suggests that it mentioned some other names as well, which possibly were dropped by the scribe's mistake at some stage, According to the Mathara commentary, Bhargava, Ulūka, Valmiki, Harita and Devala belonged to the period of the gap. The Jayamangala commentary mentions the names of only Garga and Gautama. All these commentaries suffix the word prabhrti (and the like) to their lists, implying thereby that the lists are by no means exhaustive. Surprisingly, these three lists do not contain common names, with the solitary exception of Harita mentioned by the Yuktidipika and the Matharavrtti. This may be interpreted to suggest that the lists represent separate traditions or lineages. But, it will be intriguing, then, that the number of teachers in the three lists is widely varying, ten, five and two, which cannot be expected to cover independently three schools ofSamkhya. In all these three lists the lineage is connected ultimately with Isvarakrsna, which raises the question of explaining how he could be the lineal descendant of three separate schools. Though it is asserted by the three commentaries that Isvarakrsna received the knowledge of Samkhya through teacher- student lineage (sisya-parampara), we cannot establish the

38. adyo te sastrasya bhagavato'gre praurtudd na satrāntarasat vamsah sakyo varşasatasahasrairapyakhyatum | - p. 175.

Samkhya Schools 291

chronological connection among the various names in the three lists. We are not sure even about the order of sequence in them. It is not certain that each succeeding name was that of a disciple of the person immediately preceding it. The commentaries do not assert it. The Matharavrtti, however, clearly says that Isvarakrsna received the system from Bhargava, Ulūka, Valmiki, Harita, Devala and others. It is only Paramartha, who, in his commentary, specifically refers to the lineal connection, when he mentions the names as forming a bridge between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna, He says that the knowledge of Samkhya was transmitted by Pancasikha to Ho-kia, by Ho-kia to Uluka, by Uluka to Po-p'o-li, and by Po-p'o-li to Isvarakrsņa, Ho-kia (= Japanese version Kať'-kia) may signify Garga, and Po-p'o-li (= Japanese version Bat'-ba-li) may stand for Baddhali. Here a direct lineage is envisaged. But, the long period between Pancasikha and Iśvarakrsna cannot be covered only by three teachers in succession, namely Garga, Uluka and Baddhali, unless we choose to place Isvarakrsna long before the time generally assigned to him. Evidently there were many other Samkhya teachers in this lineage. Paramärtha mentions only three of them, and also commits the mistake of postulating a direct lineage among the five teachers from Pancasikha to Iśvarakrsna.

Samkhya - Earlier and Later The differences in the various forms of Samkhya exposition were so pronounced that they were perceptible even to non-Samkhya thinkers. In the Caraka-samhita" we have a reference to the exposition by the adyasamkhya. It shows that the earliest exposition of Samkhya was considered to be different from the Samkhya which came to be developed later. Thus, a broad distinction was maintained between the earlier and the later Samkhya. Scholars generally agree that the Samkhya system of philosophy, found in the Caraka- sarhhita, represents an older form of Samkhya, which was different

39. Sotra 25.10 - samkhyairadyaih samparikirtitah I

292 Retrieving Samkhya History from the Classical Samkhya of Isvarakrsna,10 and refer to it as the adya-samkhya. It is interesting to find that the Jain scholar Gunaratnasuri, in his commentary on the Saddarsana-samuccaya, speaks of the original or maulikya-samkhya. According to him, the maulikya-sâmkhya teachers postulate separate pradhāna (prakrti) for each atman, whereas the later ones (uttara) propound one eternal pradhana for all the atmans. Thus, a characteristic principle of the earlier Samkhya system was the doctrine of the plurality of prakrtis, whereas the later Samkhya subscribed to the tenet of a single prakrti. We cannot say definitely if the adya-samkhya or maulikya- sāmkhya was organised as a distinet school which had its separate existence even in later times after Samkhya came to believe in one prakrti. We do not know whether the original Samkhya system was maintained by its followers in later times, or it existed only in texts to be referred to as an object of history. The evidence of the Caraka- samhita suggests that the adya-samkhya continued to receive the allegiance of scholars in later times. A similar distinction is maintained in the Samkhya system on the ground of the belief in God or the rejection of the principle. We propose to discuss the problem in the following chapter. Yuktidīpikā on Divergent Views in Sāmkhya System The Yuktidipika provides clear evidence for the existence of Samkhya teachers and schools subscribing to views opposed to the principles expounded in the Samkhyakarika. This commentary aims at vindicating the views of Isvarakrsna with the help of cogent arguments. It meets the criticism and contrary views of non- Samkhya systems. At places, it refers to the views expressed by earlier Samkhya authorities, and, after a proper analysis and

40. S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosuphy, Vol. I, pp. 213-14 Usha Kushwaha, Samkhyadarsana aur dyurveda, pp. 240-2 makes a detailed study of the similarities and dissimilarities between the two to infer the characteristic features of theadya-samkhya in the Ayurveda texts. See pp. 240-2

Samkhya Schools 293

arguments, upholds the position taken by Isvarakrsna. Some of these views are attributed to individual philosophers, whereas a few are specifically ascribed to the followers of a thinker. The reference to the followers maintaining a view shows that the thinker established a school which survived even after his death. Some instances referred to below are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive.

SENSE-ORGANS-NATURE AND FUNCTIONING Atone place the Yuktidipika" says that, according to some teachers, the sense-organs have no fixed magnitude and are modified into the shape of the object, whose impression they receive; others are of the view that the sense-organs are limited; while in the opinion of Vindhyaväsin they are pervasive. The Yuktidipika refers to the difference of opinion among Samkhya teachers about the nature of the organs. It quotes the opinion of Pancadhikarana that the organs are material products.42 As a criticism of this view, the Yuktidipika reproduces the view of earlier Samkhya teachers (Samkhyavrddhas), who argue on the basis of the fact that the organs are prapyakarl, which means that they function only when they come in contact with their objects. The organs perceive objects lying at a distance. They perceive all objects, great or small, irrespective of the magnitude of the organs. All this is possible only when the organs are considered to be pervasive. This shows that the organs are not material products, but are the products of ahamkara." On the question of perception the Yuktidipika quotes the view of Vindyavasin that it is the coming into contact of organs with the objects and is free from imagination (indeterminate)(avikalpika).44 It again refers to the opinion of other teachers who hold that general cognition (samanya-jnana) of an object belongs to the organs

41. P.108 42 P.108 43. P. 12. 44. P.4.

294 Retrieving Samkhya History

(indriyas) and special cognition (visesa-jnana) to the intellect (buddhi),4 The Yuktidtpika mentions the opinion of several Samkhya teachers about the number of organs." Thus, Pancādhikaraņa takes the number to be ten, but the followers of Varsaganya mentions eleven organs. Vindhyavasin holds the same opinion. According to Patanjali, there are only twelve organs, because he does not consider ahamkāra to be a separate entity, including it within buddhi. The Yuktidipika refers to the view of a teacher who holds that the motor organs grasp, manas and ahamkara retain, while the sensory organs and buddhi illumine the objects.47 It criticises those who hold that the sensory organs illumine the objects.4 As against the view of Isvarakrsna that the organs operate successively in apprehending all percepts, past or not visible, the Yuktidipika says that the ancient teachers maintained that in the case of present percepts there is a simultaneous operation of the organs.49

CLASSIFICATION OF KNOWLEDGE

The Yuktidipika50mentions elaborately the views of Pancadhikaraņa and Vindhyavasin on the classification of knowledge which differ considerably from that of Isvarakrana. Pancādhikarana classifies knowledge intotwo heads-prakrta (natural) and vaikrta (acquired) Präkrta is subdivided into three classes - tattvasama, sâmsiddhika and abhisyandika. Vaikrta is sub-divided into two classes - sva- vaikrta or tāraka and para-vaikrta. Vindhyavāsin disregards both tattvasama and samsiddhika. According to him, knowledge cannot be innate; it is to be acquired. It does not function out of its own accord.

45. P. 121. 46. Pp. 108, 132 47. P. 122 48 P. 122 49. P. 130 50. Pp. 147-8.

Samkhya Schools 295

BHOJA Another point, on which the Yuktidipikaa1 records differing views, relates to bhoga, whereas some teachers hold that everything is experienced in the mahat (buddhi), according to Vindhyavasin, it is experienced in manas (mind). Some teachers hold that reflection (samkalpa), self-appropriation (abhimana) and ascertainment (adhyavasâya) are distinctly separate; according to Vindhyavāsin they are one. Varsaganya is of the view that when the organs function abnormally, the influx comes into them directly from the pradhana (prakrti), but, in the ordinary course, they act from within. Patanjali says that they always act from within, but Pancadhikarana holds that they always act on the basis of influx from outside. According to Pancadhikarana, the organs by their nature are without any impression left in them and are like an empty village or a dry river. Whenever there is an external stimulus of knowledge, they receive automatically an influx from the pradhäna; it is only then that the organs can operate.

ORDER OF EVOLUTION The Yuktidipika records differing views among earlier Samkhya teachers about the order of evolution. Vindhyavasin regards ahamkara as also the five subtle elements as evolving from mahat.52 But, Patañjali. who does not consider ahamkara to be a separate category, holds that egoism characterises mahat.5

TRANSMIGRATION OF PURUSA The best illustration of the importance of the Yuktidipika is found in the passage wherein it discusses different views about the purușa adopting a physical body and migrating from one existence to another. Pancadhikarana holds the view that purusa, in his migratory state, is associated with a subtle body (vaivarta sarira),

51. P.108. 52. P. 108 53. P. 32

296 Retrieving Samkhya History which enters the blood and semen of parents at the time of their intercourse. It then reaches the womb, forms the embryo, which develops into an avum, foetus, etc., and is then released from the womb as a child. The physical body, thus derived, is retained so long as the fruition of merit and demerit is not completely exhausted. The subtle body, after its separation from the physical body, migrates to heaven, hell, world of plants or animals or the world of human beings, according to merit and demerit acquired. The subtle body has the capacity to hold and seige the sense-organs; it is enveloped by the latter at the time of a new birth and is forsaken by the same at death Patanjali holds that the subtle body varies with ach birth. For enjoying the benefits of the six siddhis the body transmits the ten organs into the seed of karman, which results in the integration of the organs with the merit and demerit of the individual. On the termination of siddhis this body pushes the integrated organs from behind, so that the latter may get themselves in touch with the parental seed of the next birth. As soon as this is accomplished, simultaneously with death the subtle body disappears. The migration into the higher or lower world is determined by the merit or demerit acquired during the period of siddhi. In the next life another fresh subtle body is received through good or bad karman. In this way the series of subtle bodies continues till the stock or merit and demerit is exhausted. According to Vindhyavāsin, the sense-organs are ubiquitous and hence there can be no movement of them from one embodiment to another. Fresh birth means only the manifestation of sense-organs in the medium of the parental seed. Death is the withdrawal of this manifestation. Thus, there is no existence of any subtle intermediate body. The Yuktidtpika discusses these views and, in support of Isvarakrsna's stand, shows that, by maintaining a subtle intermediate body, the problems connected with the process of migration of the purusa from one embodiment to another can be satisfactorily solved.54

EVOLUTION FROM AHAMKĀRA

On the question of the evolution of tattvas from ahamkara, the

54. On karika, 41.

Samkhya Schools 297

Yuktidipika55 refers to the view of an ancient Samkhya text (sastra), but without giving its name. The ahamkara is considered to be threefold, vaikarika, taijasa and bhatadi, according as it abounds respectively in sattva, rajas and tamas. According to this text, the bhūtadi, when the vaikarika (sattva) element is predominant in them and they are excited by the taijasa, follow the vaikarika for bringing about differentiation in their evolutes. In the same manner the vaikārika, when the bhūtadi (tamasa) element is predominant in them and they are excited by the taijasa, follow the bhūtadi for bringing about differentiation in their evolutes, This is a significant way of emphasising the role of gunas in determining the nature of the evolutes emerging from ahamkara and classifying them into subjective and objective series. This emphasis was not retained by later teachers but was reasserted by the Yuktidipika.

PRATYAYA-SARGA The Yuktidlpikaf describes a concept of pratyaya-sarga (volitional evolution) which is different from that of the Samkhyakarika (46). It refers to an earlier Samkhya text as Sastra. The title of the text and the name of its author are not mentioned. Evidently it refers to an ancient system of Samkhya principles. This evolution is after the evolution beginning with mahat and ending in the five gross elements (uisesa). This evolution springs from the will of what is variously termed as Mahatmya-sarira and Brahman. Having derived his physical body, equipped with the organs, from the prakrti at the beginning of a cycle of creation. He had a strong desire to procreate progenies who may do His work and may know Him, others and themselves. From His desire sprang from the main stream (mukhya- srotas) five gods. But He was not satisfied. Then He created twenty- eight gods from the horizontal (tiryak) stream, but He was not satisfied even with them. From the upward (ürdhva) stream nine gods were created. But He did not think that His purpose was served. Then from the downard (arvak) source He created eight

55 P. 116 56. P. 112

298 Retrieving Samkhya History gods. This is a significant view of pratyaya-sarga which seems to have been accepted by earlier Samkhya teachers, but was modified in presentation by later teachers. EVOLUTION OF TATTVANTARA FROM PRAKRTI It may be noted here that the Yuktidipika5 refers to an earlier Samkhya view, different from the usually accepted version of Samkhya. Whereas generally mahat is believed to have evolved from prakrti, some teachers held that from prakrti first emanates another tattva (tattvantara) ofindistinet form (anirdesya-svarüpa). Mahat evolves from this nebulous tattua. Evidently this squence of evolution could not find acceptance in the general Samkhya circle and was hence dropped. SCHOOLS IN YUKTIDIPIKĀ At on place the Yuktidipika says that, according to Patanjali, Pancadhikarana and the Varsaganas mahat is evolved from pradhana (prakrti). Besides their common view on the point, the formal institutional connection among the three is not indicated. The names do not shown any order of chronology or importance. Available evidence shows that Patanjali did not precede Pañcādhikaraņa. Varșaganas were the followers of Vārsaganya. It is not known why, as in the case of Patanjali and Pancadhikarana, the name of Varsaganya is not mentioned and instead his followers are referred to. It is not unlikely that Patanjali and Pancadhikarana did not found an independent Samkhya school, whereas the philosophical views of Varsaganya were not only preserved but developed and popularised by his followers. Here we may note the interesting fact that the Yuktidipikd quotes the views of several Samkhya teachers, Pancasikha, Vārşaganya, Patanjali, Paurika, Pancādhikaraņa and Vindhyavāsin. But, in no case does it refer to the views of the followers of these teachers. The only exception is that of Varsaganya. Of the thirteen

57. P. 108

Samkhya Schools 299

passages referring to the views associated with this philosopher, it is only in four cases that we have an attribution to him personally.56 In the remaining nine passages the views are attributed to the followers of Varsaganya. It seems that there was a strong group of the followers of Varsaganya who had preserved his philosophical views. The school possibly maintained its individual identity even after the standardisation effected by Isvarakrsna. In the case of other Samkhya teachers we do not have the evidence to suggest that they founded a separate system of Samkhya with its own group of adherents. From other sources we do learn of some Samkhya teachers such as Yajnavalkya, Vasistha, Pancadhikarana, Jaigisavya and Pancasikha as expounding their views to individuals, but this is not sufficient proof for their distinct schools. Of these it is Pancasikha for whom we have reference to the largest number of disciples. Possibly all these established their own separate schools.

Conclusion

The reference to the Samkhya school being split up into eighteen groups, as made by Kuei-chi, is to explained in the light of the above- mentioned facts, as gleaned from the Yuktidipik. Kuei-chi mentions Ba-li-sha meaning Rain (Varsa) as the head of the eighteen groups. The obvious question is how can an individual be the head of eighteen groups. It seems that in the process of the recording of the fact in the Chinese and its translation now, certain elements have been introduced which have confused the original statement. Possibly Kuei-chi wanted to record that the Samkhya school was divided into eighteen groups of which the chief was the one founded by Varsaganya. In his time also, it seems, the school was known as that of the Varsaganas, as indicated by the Yuktidipikd. Not fully familiar with the background of the formation of the name Varsagana from Varsaganya, Kuei-chi seems to have given explanations which create confusion. The above discussion shows that though there were quite a few

58 P. 108, lines 9,15-16, Vrsaganavira on p. 90 clearly alludes to him The reading bhagavan Varsaganah on p. 72 seems to be the scribe's mistake for Varsaganyah

300 Retrieving Samkhya History groups of Samkhya thinkers, with their distinctive views, they could not retain their separate existence as independent schools. Of these the school associated with the name of Varsaganya had the most pronounced character and enjoyed a longer existence. One word about eighteen as the number of Samkhya schools according to Kuei-chi. Kuce-chi does not mention any school, excepting that of the Varsaganas. In Indian tradition several numbers have a hallowed sanctity and are adopted for classification and grouping. Eighteen is one such number. There are eighteen Puranas, eighteen Upapuranas, eighteen Parvas in the Mahabhārata, eighteen vidyās and eighteen Vyavahārapadas. Here the number may be imaginary and not actual, and was possibly intended to imply a large number of schools. We may also note that the Buddhist canonical literature speaks of eighteen schools in Buddhism. This could have influenced the Chinese Tradition to mention Samkhya also being divided into eighteen schools.

16

Sāmkhya - Seśvara and Nirīśvara

Introduction - Philosophy and Religion IN ancient India philosophy is found emerging generally as an adjunct of religion. Philosophical thought did not exist in isolation. There are, no doubt, passages of sublime metaphysical heights. But philosophy seldom arose in abstraction. It is in the context of religious needs that philosophical speculation had its birth. The practical requirements of religion were often provided with an intellectual background or speculative justification through philosophical thinking. The need for escape from the sufferings of life and the urge for salvation led to various methods and ways. These methods or systems tried to rationalise their approach by presenting a philosophy dealing with the problems of life and world, the causes of suffering, and the way to overcome suffering. F. Edgerton' underlines this characteristic of Indian thought by describing it as "practical in its motive". It seeks truth "not as an abstract and in itself; it is for the sake of the salvation which that truth is believed to bring with it". Among the issues, which the philosophical systems are supposed to deal with, the nature and role of God occupies an important position. In certain respects it becomes a distinguishing feature of the system. The question is important in respect of the Samkhya system as well. 1. "The Meaning of Samkhya and Yoga", American Journal of Philology, XLV, L, No. 117, 1924, p. 1.

302 Retrieving Samkhya History

Samkhya - Atheistic

From very early times the Samkhya view about God has been debated and discussed, The classical exposition of Samkhya in the Samkhyakarika does not contain any mention of God. For this reason Samkhya is labelled as an atheistic system. Denial of God is taken to be a distinguishing feature of Samkhya. It is often pointed out that the twin systems of Samkhya and Yoga subscribe to the same philosophical views; the main point of difference between the two is that, whereas Yoga upholds the position of God and assigns him a dominant role in its scheme, Samkhya does not mention God in its philosophical system. The atheistic nature of Samkhya is taken to be such a prominent characteristic of the system, that scholars often describe it as a non-Vedic philosophy. Scholars go to the extent of branding Samkhya as being anti-Vedic and suggesting its origin from a non-Vedic source. Modern scholars have a complete faith in the atheistic nature of Samkhya philosophy. This view of modern scholars has conditioned their treatment of the Samkhya philosophy, giving it a particular slant and direction. Here we do not propose to discuss the question of Samkhya being Vedic or non-Vedic in all its fulness. We propose to concentrate only on one vital aspect of the problem relating to the Samkhya position about God. For a proper study of the question we have to analyse its different aspects and dimensions. We are required to begin with the views of modern authorities on Samkhya and then to go on to the references in the ancient works, with a final scrutiny of the opinions expressed in Samkhya texts. Here we will restrict ourselves to an analysis of the interpretations and explanations offered by modern authorities of Samkhya." Modern scholars are so much obsessed with the notion of Samkhya being atheistic that at times they have failed to do justice to the references to the contrary in ancient texts. They are inclined

2. Wehave used with advantage G.J. Larson, Clossical Samkhya, pp. 16- 72, 245-56 for his critical review of interpretations of Samkhya by modern scholars.

Sämkhya - Sesvara and Nirisvara 303

to explain such passages in a number of ways. They would not change their fixed view about the atheistic nature of Samkhya even when faced with clear references opposing it. They postulate several stages in which Samkhya was changed its stand on the question of God. According to them, Samkhya before it acquired its classical atheistic form at the hands of Isvarakrsna, underwent trans- formation from atheistic to theistic and from theistie to atheistic. They do not subscribe to a set pattern of transformation. They suggest varying patterns, according to their views about theoriginal nature of Samkhya.

GARBE'S VIEWS Richard Garbe, among the earliest scholars to attempt a detailed study of Sämkhya, underlined its atheistic character. According to him, Samkhya does not have any place for a god or gods.3 Garbe holds that Samkhya, in its principal features, is the work of one man, Kapila,4 and that it has not undergone any remarkable alternation in its history.5 The denial of God was one of the main features of the original Samkhya of Kapila.6 Garbe requires us to believe that Samkhya emerges suddenly in its full-grown form without any antecedents. We will not discuss all the fallacies in his arguments. The basic defect in Garbe's interpretation of Samkhya is his reliance mainly on the Samkhya- pravacanasūtra, as explained by Aniruddha and Vijnānabhikșu. He ignores the other Samkhya texts and references to Samkhya in other ancient works and hence comes to a historically indefencible position. He fails to appreciate the historical significance of the testimony particularly of the Middle Upanisads (Katha and Švetäsvatara), the Moksadharmaparva chapters in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata, the Gita, and the Manusmrti, He does not recognise the possibility of Samkhya acquiring its classical form in

3 Die Samkhya Philosophie, pp. 253 ff Ibid., pp. 46-50 5. Garbe (ed.), Samkhya Sutru Vrtti, Introduction, p. iv. 6. Die Samkhya Philosophie, p. 26.

304 Retrieuing Samkhya History the Samkhyakarika through a process of historical change and of there being an early Samkhya or pre-classical Samkhya, which differed from the classical Samkhya even in respect of certain vital points. Garbe could not give any place to the suggestion that Samkhya was theistic at least in some quarters and at a certain stage of its history.

Stages in Samkhya History - Consideration of Atheism Later scholars, who were conscious of the historical argument and evidence, formalated several stages in the growth of Samkhya philosophy, in which its view of God was a determining feature. One such early scholar was Joseph Dahlmann. He argues that the philosophical portions in the Mahabharata contain the original form of Samkhya.7 In that stage Samkhya and Yoga were not two separate systems." As Samkhya-Yoga they were one system, which was theistic."Dahlmann was still under the spell ofGarbe'sinfluence. He took the original Samkhya, found in the Epic, to be identical with the Classical Samkhya with one or two exceptions.10 Though the Epic Samkhya has similarities with the Classical Samkhya, the differences, though not many, are significant in nature. The theistic nature is one of the striking features of the Epic Samkhya. Paul Oltramare, like Garbe, interprets Samkhya as a unified entity with little change in its long history from the earliest times to the Samkhyapravacanasutra and its commentaries. But he shows a departure from Garbe in some important respects. According to him, the Samkhya dualism is not in terms of matter and spirit, but of Being and Becoming." More importantly, Oltramare offers a morerational explanation of the atheism ofSamkhya. The philosophy of dualism of Being and Becoming suits the atheistic nature of 7. Die Samkhya Philosophie als Naturlehre and Erlosungslehre. pp. 1-19. Ibid .. pp. 5-10. 9. Ibid .. pp.12-13. 10. Ibid., pp. 6-7 11. L' Histoire des Idees theosophiques dans L' Inde, Tome Premier: "La Theosophie Brahmanique", pp. 221-30.

Samkhya - Sesvara and Nirisvara 305

Samkhya better than does the dualism of matter and spirit. The distinction between Becoming and Being does not admit the existence of a third entity as an all-encompassing god. But this does not rule out individual gods. According to Oltramare, the atheism ofSamkhya does not deny the existence of these gods. On the contrary he takes the concept of Becoming to include these gods appearing in the traditional Indian pantheon."They do not elash with the formulation of Samkhya principles. They do not have any relevance to the problems of creation and man's salvation. The merit of Oltramare's view is that he recognises that Samkhya does not propound total atheism; its principles do not leave any place for a creator God who is also the ultimate refuge. Hermann Oldernberg, with his sound knowledge of the Vedas and other Sanskrit texts, was in a position to reconstruct to origin and early history of Samkhya. He distinguishes the Classical Samkhya from its earlier formulation, which he terms as vor- Klassische Samkhya (pre-classical Samkhya). This can be traced in the Middle and Younger Upanisads (Katha, Svetasvatara and Maitrayaniya) and in the philosophical portions of the Mahabharata (Gita and Moksadharmaparva1"). The Katha Upanisad does not represent a fully theistic system. Its purusa is like Brahman.14 The pre-Classical Samkhya in the Svetasvatara Upanisad and the Bhagavad Gita acquires a more theistic form.15 Though A.B. Keith interprets Samkhya as derived out of the speculations in the Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanisads,1 he does not think in terms of pre-classical Samkhya formulations. He holds, that Samkhya as a system is not found much before some later portions of the Moksadharmaparva."7 He notices that the Middle

12. L' Histotre des Idees theosophiques dans L' Inde, pp. 268-71 13. "Zur Geschichte der Samkhya-Philosophie", Nachrichten pon der Königlichen Gesellschoft der Wissenschaften zu Gottinge, Philologisch- historische Klasse aus dem Jahre, 1917, p. 218 14 Ibid., p. 223. 15. Ibid., pp. 226ff, 233fF 16 The Samkhya System, p. 8. 17 The Samkhya System, p. 65

306 Retrieuing Samkhya History Upanişads (Kațha, Švetāsvatara, Mundaka; Isa, etc.) tend to be theistic or even absolutistic. Keith, who considers the denial of the Absolute and the emphasis on individual soul (purusa) as one of the two Key Notions Samkhya, does not take the formulations in the Middle Upanisads to be Samkhya at all. What he takes to be the characteristics of Samkhya are actually features which were standardised by Isvarakrsna. It is to be noted that the meaning of the term Samkhya has changed in course of centuries and with it the characteristics and contents of Samkhya principles have varied. There is a case for recognising the historical possibility of a growth and change in Sämkhya philosophy. The standardisation ofSamkhya philosophy by Isvarakrsna has overshadowed theearlierenunciation of Samkhya principles. It will not be valid to equate Samkhya only with what is generally described as the Classical Samkhya. considering the long history of Samkhya, we will have to admit several stages in its evolution. If we cannot identify all these stages, we have to recognise at least two broad phases of pre-classical Samkhya and classical Samkhya.15 These observations are applicable also to Keith's discussion of the testimony of the Epic, Keith holds that there are many kinds of speculations in the Moksadharmaparva and other philosophical portions of the Epic,19 He describes only a few passages,70 which mention twenty-five categories and clearly deny God or an Absolute, as representing Samkhya. He refuses to recognise the other passages as testifying to the Samkhya system. But, he does admit that all these passages have a dominant theistic tinge, with many Vedäntic ideas.21 As Keith refuses to connect these passages with Samkhya, 18. G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya, Samkhya (Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. IV) point out that the classical Samkhya or the technical philosophical Samkhya has a long history divided into broad phases of pre-Karika and Kārika Samkhya. The first, on early phase, includes older äcdryas and Varsaganya. The second, the later phase, inculdes the followers of Varsaganya including Vindhyavasin and Isvarakrsna. 19 Op.cit., pp. 36ff. 20 Mbh., XII.289,1 ff; XII.294.297f. 21. The Samkhya System, pp. 36-7.

Samkhya - Sesvara and Nirtsvara 307

there is no question of his admitting that Samkhya had a theistic phase in its history. Like Garbe, he considers Samkhya to be basically atheistic. Edgerton on Samkhya being Non-theistic F. Edgerton holds that originally the term Samkhya signified a method of salvation by knowing, without any reference to the content of knowing."7 According to him, in the Upanisads and the Epic Samkhya has this meaning; it does not imply any system of metaphysical truth whatsoever." It was only with the formulation in the Samkhyakarika that the name Samkhya came to be associated with a particular system of thought, 'with the doctrines of plurality of souls and no world soul'.2 Edgerton is among the few scholars who have controverted the popular view that Samkhya was atheistic or non-absolutistic. Though Edgerton is justified in suggesting that Samkhya originally was a method of salvation by knowing, he shuts his eyes to the rich evidence, particularly in the Upanisads and the Moksadharmaparva chapters of the Mahabharata, about the circulation of Samkhya as a philosophical system long before the Samkhyakarika. Edgerton ignores the fact that the Samkhyakarika itself refers to a rich and long history of Samkhya as a system before its own times."5 By taking the fully developed formulation in the Samkhyakärika to be the earliest form of Samkhya he adopts a position which is similar to Garbe's presentation of Samkhya as a monolithic system. Thus, he rules out the possibility of Samkhya undergoing any significant transformation and fails to appreciate the Upanisadic and Epic passages with a theistic slant. Edgerton's explanation of the term anisvara in Mahabharata,

22. The Beginnings of Indian Philosophy, pp. 24ff; The Meaning of Sämkhya and Yoga", op.cit., p. 16. 23. The Meaning of Samkhya and Yoga", op.cit., p. 32 24. Ibid., p. 34. 25. Karikas, 71-3.

308 Retrieving Samkhya History XII.289.3 as meaning 'soul' or 'highest self and not 'he who has no lord' is valid objection to the view which sees in the Mahabharata passage a reference to Samkhya being atheistic. But, what could not receive due attention from Edgerton is the fact that the question ofSamkhya being atheistic or not is to be discussed primarily on the basis of the references in the specific texts of Samkhya. It has to be admitted that the enunciation of Samkhya principles in the Smkhyakárika has no place for theism. Edgerton does not vindicate his view about Samkhya not being atheistic by explaining the system as found in the Samkhyakarikå and other texts of Samkhya. Use of Early Texts for Samkhya History Among the scholars, who have appreciated the historical value of the Upanisads, Moksadharmaparva, Git and other early texts and have formulated several stages in the history of the growth of Samkhya, the names of S.N. Dasgupta, E.H. Johnston and E. Frauwallner stand out prominent. Sometimes they define these stages in terms of their being theistic or atheistic. The sequential order of these phases varies on account of the differences in the chronological position of these texts and their relative importance as suggested by the scholars. Dasgupta, envisages three stages. On the basis of the contents of the sasthitantra, as described in the Ahirbudhnyasamhita, he suggests that originally Samkhya was theistic. The second stage, as represented in the Caraka-samhita and the doctrines of Pancasikha in Mahābharata, XII.219, was atheistic, İsvarakrsna's Samkhya- kärika represents the third and final stage characterised by atheism.25 Johnston also identifies five phases which can be reduced to three prominent stages."7 According to him, the Samkhyakarika gives the classical form of Samkhya which represents the fifth phase. The first four phases are to be placed before the Samkhyakarika. Johnston changes the order of the first two stages 26. A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, pp. 219-21. 27. Early Samkhya, pp. 81-8.

Samkhya - Sesvara and Nirisvara 309

describing the first as the early atheistic, the second an intermediate theistic, and the third a later atheistic. The first stage contains two phases and is represented by the Katha Upanisad recording an incomplete form of Samkhya and later by a more systematic form probably of the Varsaganya school. The second, theistic stage, is found in the Svetasvatara Upanisad and the Bhagavad Gita. In the third stage, which occurred before the appearance of the classical Samkhya, the atheistic schools formulated their principles in such a way as to reconcile the changes made in the preceding theistic phase. Some of this reformulation is attributed to the Pancasikha school. A serious difficulty with Johnston's formulation is the larger use which he makes of imagination with very slender evidence in his support. His reconstruction of the history of Samkhya is based on the study of certain key terms, their use and modification. He does not have definitive texts representing the various phases which he identifies. In his study Johnston has violently discarded the known chronological indications. Thus, there is no valid argument in support of the association of the later school of Varsaganya with the second phase and of the earlier Pancasikha school with the fourth phase. Frauwallner determines five stages in the development of Samkhya. According to him, the original Grund text of the three passages in the Moksadharmaparva in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata* represents the first articulation of Samkhya theory, being a further working out of the Upanisadic doctrine of the self. The second stage, associated with Pancasikha, witnessed the articulation of most of the later classical Samkhya, including the introduction of the theory of evolution and other related doctrines. The third stage, associated with Varsaganya, was characterised by the addition of further doctrines, particularly the introduction of the sixty topics (sasthitantra). The classical formulation in the Samkhyakārika is the final stage.

28. History of Indian Philosophy, pp. 29. XII194 =247-49 =287 (Critical edition XII.187= 239-40).

310 Retrieving Samkhya History Frauwallner does not mention the concept of God as the distinguishing feature of any of these four stages. His total refusal to see in the Upanisads actual Samkhya speculation, his limited use of the rich Moksadharmaparva passages and his ignoring the theistic references have pushed to the background this important aspect of Samkhya.

Ralationship with Yoga In Indian tradition Samkhya and Yoga are often bracketed together. They have much in common. Certain aspects are emphasised in one, while some others are detailed in the other. H. Zimmer does not take them to be two different systems. According to him, the two make up one system oftheory and practice. The Samkhya represents the theoretical dimension of the system and the Yoga its practical.3 One can easily visualise that from this it will be easy to connect the theistic view with the practice and the atheistic view with the theory of the system. Two recent studies by J.W. Hauer31 and Mircea Eliade32 have a similar view on this question. Both have Yoga as their main concern. Naturally they approach Samkhya from the side of Yoga. They over emphasise the Yoga connections and, thus, are not in a position to do justice to the independent elements in the nature and development of Sāmkhya. According to Hauer, a type of proto-Yoga circulating among the Vrātyas was taken over by Brahmanism. Samkhya is a later development within that Yoga tradition which emphasised speculation and intuitive philosophical examination of the Yogic state of consciousness. Later there arose some other basic differences between Samkhya and Yoga, Hauer notices this atheistic and dualistic character of Samkhya as early as the times of Mahabharata, XII.289.x

30. Philosphies of India, p. 280 31. Der Yoga (Stuttgart, 1958). 32. Yoga: Immortality and Freedom. Its Engliah translation by Willard R. Trask (New York); also appeared in 1958. 33 Loc. cit., pp. 208-9.

Samkhya - Sesvara and Nirtsvara 311

Eliade finds Yoga and Samkhya to be very much alike. Among the very few essential differences between the two, one is that whereas Samkhya is atheistic, Yoga is theistic." Eliade fails to recognise any variation in this characteristic of Samkhya, because he takes Samkhya in the Moksadharmaparva and other earlier works to refer not to any system, but to any kind of metaphysical knowledge.5 Even at a very early stage in the history of modern Sämkhya scholarship some scholars were critical of characterisation of Samkhya as an atheistic system. They pointed out that the early texts of the system do not make a clear denial of the existence of God, being generally silent on this issue. Some scholars go on to offer a philosophical explanation of this silence. The Samkhya texts do not explicitly mention God, not because they do not believe in His existence, but because they do not find a rationally justified role for Him in their philosophical system.

Samkhya as Theistic Max Muller35 points out that the Tattvasamasa and the Sämkhyakarika do not explicitly subscribe to atheism. In neither of the two texts there is any specific denial of the existence of a god or gods. With A.K. Mazumdar the attempt to explain the atheistic character of Samkhya swings to another extreme. He does not find any conflict between the theistic passages in Samkhya and the atheistic arguments advanced in the commentaries and other later Samkhyatexts. According to him," the so-called atheistic arguments become really theistic when interpreted properly. But, this is overstretching the explanation. The fact remains that Classical Samkhya is atheistic in expounding its principles. The atheistic character of Samkhya is taken for granted by the commentators. They are at pains to explain it as issuing out of the compulsions of

34 Loc, cit .. p. 7. 35 Ibid., pp. 148-9. 36 The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, pp. 302fr 37 The Samkhya Conception of Persanality, p. 1.

312 Retrieving Samkhya History the philosophical stand of Samkhya and as not conflicting with the requirements of religious sects to which they themselves belonged.

Appreciation of Samkhya Stand Modern scholarship generally speaking has been appreciative of the Samkhya view on God. Samkhya, as a philosophical system, does not have a place for God. Rational argument, when strictly applied to the Samkhya principles, cannot justify a philosophical acceptance of God. Samkhya is to be commended for rationally following its principles. It has been bold enough n'ot to be swayed by other considerations in its philosophical exposition. It Has extended its arguments to their logical ends.38 G.J. Larson has presented a very critical and convincing study of the history and meaning of Sämkhya. He takes into account the full range of the history of Samkhya, though emphasising its classical formulation by Isvarakrsņa. He makes, a judicious and critical use of the studies attempted by earlier scholars.39 He is aware of the desirability of a historical study of the development of Samkhya .* 0 He himself attempts an interpretation of the historical developm'ent of Classical Samkhya.41 Before Isvarakrsna's Classical Sāmkhya he envisages only two phases. In the first, termed as Ancient Speculations and coyering the Vedas" and, the oldest Upanisads, he, traces many motifs, ideas and structures ofthought which;were later assimilated into Samkhya context. The second phase of proto-Samkhya speculations includes the Katha, Śvetāśvatara, Maitri and other later Upanișads, Caraka and Pañcasikha, Asvaghoșa's Buddhacarita, Mokşadharmaparva and Gitā: He notices a variety of traditions, without attempting a chronological scheme. In the.texts of this phase "monistic, trends 4

38, Sovani, A'Critical Study of the Samkhya System, p. 4! "There was no place for Him in the system and Indian thinkers and Indian followers were bold enough to carry their conclusions to the logical ends.". 39. Classical Samkhya, pp. 16-72, 245-56. 40. Ibid., pp. 73-5. 41. Ibid., pp. 77-163.

Sāmkhya - Sesvara and Niriśvara 313

frequently parallel or subsume.dualistic tendencies, and many passages' are given theistic emphasis"42 According to.Larson, in this phase we may place "the emergence of a specific doctrine of twenty-five principles, comprehended from an evolutionary perspective, basically, dualistic,, nonthesistic and emphasising salvation by knowing".43

Sāmkhya Being Non-Theistic 'Larson takes a mid-way stand. He does not discuss the qustion of 'Sāmkhya being theistic or atheistic. According to him, Samkhya was non-theistic, and not atheistic. That is how he explains the term anisudra in Mahabharatd, XII:289.3,44 He translates the expression" anisvarah' katham mucyet as how can he who has no 'lord be saved?" in the sense of,"how'can purusa be saved for whom an isvara is irrelevant?" Larson is of the view that this approach explains the position of the Samkhyakarika on the question of theism. The text does not deny the existence of gods, in karikas 53 and 54 they are mentioned, but within the realm of prakrti. These gods are; thus, irrelevant from the point-ofview.of salvation :: This non-theistic stand seems to havé characterised Samkhya for a long .period. According to Larson, the eatliest attempt to set; forth a clearly atheistic doctrine,is to ber seen in the Samkyapravacana- sūtra.45 IN Larson is 'justified in hesitating to attempt a 'historical presentation of the development of Samkhya principles: Thepaucity of relevant texts of earlier periods and the uncertainty ahout the chronological position of the available references will deter any such attempt. But, there are enough indications of a broad outline of the chronological sequence, of developmènt and, following the lead of some earlier scholars. Larson, could have, attempted it. Larson's view that Samkhya had a non-theistic stand is based .42. Classical Samkhya, D. 139. L. . 43. Ibid., p. 142. 4 44. Ibid., pp. 132-5. 45. I.92-4.

314 Retrieving Samkhya History mainly on the testimony of the Moksadharmaparva verse. He does not discuss in any detail the evidence of other Samkhya texts, making only a brief reference to karikas 53 and 54 of the Samkhyakarika. His opinion that this non-theistic character of Samkhya persisted from the times of the Moksadharmaparva and was changed into an atheistic one only by the Samkhyapravacana- sütra cannot be upheld. Larson places the Samkhya pravacanasūtra after the fourteenth century, but before the sixteenth century.45 A perusal of the commentaries of the Samkhyakarika will show that the current view was that Samkhya was atheistic and that they considered all possible objections to the atheistic argument. As an illustration we may refer to the discussions in the Yuktidipika.47 P. Chakravarti48 is inelined to place the commentary not before the first half of the seventh century and not later than the eighth century.

Latika Chattopadhyaya's Reconciliation Latika Chattopadhyaya has made a very reasonable and convincing analysis of God in the Samkhya.49She does not restrict herselfto the Samkhyakarika, but studies the other Samkhya texts, commentaries and relevant passages in the Upanisads, Mahabharata and the Puranas. She takes due cognizance of the fact that Samkhya makes provision for the divine parsonality in some form or other.50 Reconciling the theistic fragments of Samkhya with its atheistic arguments, she says: The bifurcation of the Samkhya system into theism and

46 Classical Samkhya, p. 164. 47. (Ed. by P. Chakravarti), pp. 84-8. 48 Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, pp. 161- 2. A recent study concludes that it cannot be much later than the late seventh or early eighth century. Laron and Bhattacharya, op. eit., p. 228, 49. Selfin Samkhya Philosophy, Calcutta, 1982, pp. 157-98, I am grateful to Dr. Smt. Chattopadhyaya for kindly presenting me a copy of this work. 50 Self in Samkhya Philosophy, pp. 166-72

Samkhya - Sesvara and Nirisvara 315

atheism points respectively to the position of subordination in which either of the two, reasoning and belief, is put. The atheistic arguments discernible in Samkhya cannot prove conclusively that their authors are necessarily without any belief in a divine being; what they prove in reality is that Sämkhya, as a philosophy, cannot include within its fold anything like God that cannot be arrived at through a process of reasoning.51 Samkhya explains the whole world process by means of two principles, prakrti and purusa. By substituting evolution for creation, it dispenses with the creator God. The God does not have a function to justify his own existence in Samkhya.52 Samkhya tries to deduce the various tattvas through the power of inference, which is applied for arriving at God also 'and herein lies the root of the Samkhya denial of God'.53 Dr. Chattopadhyaya stresses "the fact that God in the theistic philosophical systems enters through the passage of belief and not through that of reasoning. The fragments of the theistic Samkhya, along with the treatment of God in the Yoga, mark also this dominance of belief over reasoning, although alien to the Samkhya-Yoga structure."M Chattopadhyaya brings out the relation and distination between Samkhya and Yoga.55 She criticises the common assumption that Yoga is the theistic counterpart of the atheistic Samkhya. The real distinetion between the two is that Yoga is based on practice, while Samkhya is concerned mainly with theory. On account of its concern for practical attainments Yoga "has to include within its sphere some new elements which, although unamenable to logic are indispensable for the Yoga practice. God is one such element in the Yoga".55 Her final summing up offers the most convincing

51. Self in Samkhya Philosophy, pp. 172-3. 52 Ibid., pp. 157-63 53 Ibid., p. 174. 54. Ibid., p. 177 55. Ibid., pp. 180-2. 56. Ibid., p. 177.

316 Retrieving Samkhya History

explanation of the apparently intriguing and conflicting Samkhya standpoint and statements about God. "Contrary to the popular belief, we should rather note that in course of history the Samkhya has relaxed at times its reationalistic vigour and adopted itself to the practical demand for a personal God."

Conclusion Thus, we see that the earlier studies on Samkhya suffer from a number of fallacies and mistakes and hence could not arrive at an explanation which may be both philosophically valid and historically correct. Some scholars identify Samkhya principles with the enunciation in a particular text. Some others dismiss the presentation of Sämkhya views in earlier texts, sometimes in non- Samkhya associations, as not relevant for their study. The Yoga associations of Samkhya also have sometimes coloured the interpretations advanced by modern scholars. Whereas some scholars consider Samkhya philosophy to be fixed and unchanging, others postulate a unilinear development for it. The attempts at determining the stages in the development of Sämkhya in terms of its views on God are vitiated by the neglect of the chronological position of the sources and the thinkers involved. But the most serious mistake arises out of a failure to appreciate that Samkhya system did not have a monolithic form in all the periods of its history. No doubt the standardisation effected by Iśvarakrsna provided a frame-work within which the later writers and commentators attempted minor variations or elaborations. It is to be realised that Samkhya had a very rich and varied formulation in the pre-Isvarakrsna period. It will not be correct to say that in this long period there were chronologically earlier or later phases of theisitic and atheistic Samkhya, one ousting and replacing the other completely. Theistic and atheistic traditions seem to have co- existed in different circles. Theistic views have been recorded in some of the Upanisads and in the Moksadharmaparva. They also recur later in the Puranas and the commentaries on account of the sectarian involvements of their authors.

Samkhya - Sesvara and Nirisvara 317

Samkhya and Yoga are allied systems which, at times, have been taken to form a unity. They, no doubt, have their differences as well. In Yoga the practical side is more pronounced. In Samkhya the philosophical aspect is more prominent. As a system based on reason Samkhya does not find any argument to support of His existence; in the process of evolution the creator God does not have any role to play, and for salvation also. He is not relevant. Hence Samkhya does not mention God. But, when Samkhya also partakes of the nature of a practical method, it refers to a god or gods. Thus, Samkhya is to be labelled as bing theistic, non-theistic or atheistic according to the point of view from which we consider it. But, no one designation will hold good absolutely. It may vary with the text and the age concerned.

17

Vārşagaņya, A New Sāmkhya Tradition

Introduction

SOME modern scholars assign Varsaganya a high place among ancient Samkhya authorities and atribute to him important contributions in the history of formulation of Samkhya principles. The ancient texts, however, do not confirm such an estimate of Vārșagaņya. Isvarakrsna, in his brief account of the history of Sāmkhya, does not include Varsaganya in the list of Samkhya celebrities.' But, this can be explained as being casual and dictated by the requirements of the limited space in the verse. It is, however, significant that not many lists of Samkhya celebrities contain the name of Varsaganya. In the Santiparva of the Mahabharata3 Visvavasu, the king of the Gandharvas, after listening from Yajnavalkya the account of the twenty-five categories(pancavimsam) poses before him his confusion about the true knowledge, as the latter had acquired the knowledge of Samkhya and the discipline of Yoga. The context of the account in the chapter, the categories enunciated in it, and the names of the sages listed show that here Varsaganya has been mentioned as one of the Samkhya authorities.3 The Samkhya tradition does not preserve a full account of its

1. Samkhyakārikā, 69-71. 2 (Gita Press edition) XII.318.58-61. 3. The adjective used for Varsaganya is dhimatah. It may be just casual to suit the requirements of metre. The respect shown by the adjective does not indicate any thing specific.

320 Retrieving Samkhya History early history. Taking advantage of the expression sisya-parampara. occurring in the Samkhyakarika,"the commentators have supplied a list of Samkhya teachers to fill up the gap. The name of Varsaganya does not occur in the lists given in Matharavrtti and Jayamangala. Paramärtha also does not mention Varsaganya in the list of Samkhya teachers between Pancasikha and İsvarakrşņa.5 The Yuktidtpika says that the long history of the lineage of teachers (vamsah) cannot be enumerated.“ When referring to the gap, it mentions only Janaka and Vasistha.3 But, later names several Samkhya teachers, including Vārsagaņya.8

Vrsagaņa, Vārșagaņas and Vārșagaņya In the ancient texts we have three names Vrsagana, Varsaganah and Varsaganya. But these names should not create any confusion about their identity." From Vrsagana we can have the form Varșaganya to refer to the son of Vrsagana.10 Likewise, Varsaganāh is a derivative of Vrsagana in the sense of a disciple or follower of Vrsagaņa.1! The Ārșānukramani attributes the authorship of three rcas in

4. Karika, 71. 5. Takakusu, La Samkhya Karika, p. 148, fn. 3 corrects Po-p'o-li of the Chinese source to be a mistake for Po-li-so, Japanese Bat-li-sha, Sanskrit Vrsa. Aswami, in his Sanskrit restoration of the Chinese translation of Paramärtha, follows Takakusu and enumerates the list of teachers and disciples between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna as Gargya, Ulüka, and Varsagana (p. 98). U.V.Shastri Sämkhya-darsana ka itihasa, pp. 518-19 restores Po-po-li as Kapila, but this creates many more problems than it hopes to solve. All this exercise is unnecessary. Po-p'o-li or Bat'-ba-li in the Japanese version is equated with Baddhali mentioned by the Yuktidtpikd as a Samkhya teacher. 6 On Kārikā, 70, p. 175. 7. Ibid 8 Ibid. 9. U.V. Shastri, op. cit., p. 522, fn. 1. 10 Panini IV.1.105 - Gargadi-gana Vrsagana . Yan (in the sense of apatya). 11 Vrsagana + an lin the sense of tad adhita, tad veda) Panini, IV.2.59

Värsaganya, A New Samkhya Tradition 321

the Rgueda1 to Vrsagana. Considering the manner in which the Vedic tradition has been preserved with meticulous care, there is a good case for the historicity of Vrsagana, though we may have reservations about the actual period in which he is to be placed. The Arşanukramani indicates that it took him to be a historical person and not a mythological figure. It mentions him as the son of Vasistha." But, the hymns do not support the suggestion that Vrsagana was actually the composer of these hymns. One of the hymns" has ursagana in the plural, which suggests that here it could not have been the name of a person. The Latyāyana Śrautasūtra15 mentions the views of Vārsaganya. The views of Varsaganya are referred to at several places in the Nidanasūtra attributed to Patanjali16. Though Varsaganya in these two sources seems to the same person17, he need not have been identical with Värsaganya of the Samkhya tradition, because the two texts referred to above do not contain any statement of Varsaganya which may have any connexion with Sāmkhya. Panini15 includes Vrșagana in the Gargadi gana. This would result in the formation of the name Varsaganya in the sense of a progeny of Vrsagana. Thus, it seems that both the names Vrsagana and Varsaganya were quite well-known in the times of Panini. But, Pânini does not give any details toidentify Vrsagana and Varsaganya. Patanjali1 also mentions the name of Varsaganya, but without providing any information which may help his identification. There will be no chronological difficulty in identifying Varsaganya as an ancient teacher of the Samkhya tradition.

12 IX.97.7-9. 13. Vreagana Vasisthah. It may also imply that there were more than one people with this name, hence the need to distinguish by mentioning the name of father. 14 IX.97.8. 15 X.9.10 16. (Ed by Kailash Nath Bhatnagar), pp. 33, 34, 62, 76, 96, 104 17. U.V. Shastri, op.cit., p. 610. 18. IV.1.105. 19 On 11.51. Varttika, 2.

322 Retrieving Sämkhya History

No text written by Varsaganya is available. The ancient texts do not refer to the name of the work composed by him. The quotations from his writings occurring. in commentaries do not leave-any doubt about his composition being a Sāmkhya text.20 Such quotations occur also in works belonging to some philosophical systems other than Samkhya.21 Vacaspatimisra22is the only writer, who, in introducing one quotation from Varsaganya refers to him as enunciating Yogasastra. In view of the undoubted testimony of many texts of diverse traditions which associate. Varsaganya with Sāmkhya, Vācaspatimisra seems to be wrong when he describes Vārșaganyą as propounding Yogasastra.23 But Vācaspatimiśra was possibly not without some reason in his support. Varsaganya seems to have belonged to a period when Samkhya and Yoga formed a single unit. In view of the Yoga portions in the work written by Varsaganya, later writers associated him with Yoga. There can be another explanation for the reference in Vacaspatimisra's Bhāmatī. As has been demonstrated by P. Chakravarti,24 the theoretical portions of the Yogabhasya are based upon the system of Varsaganya and his followers. Thus, there was a living tradition in the circle of Yoga which gave a high respect to the views of Varsaganya. This was possibly the basis of-the statement made by Vacaspatimiśra about Vārsaganya as an expounder of Yogasastra.35

20. Quotations occurring'in Yuktidipika, Samkhya-fattvakaumudi, .Vyasabhasya on Yogasutra and Bhamati on Vedantasatra. See U.V. Shastri, op.cit., pp. 611-14. 21. Vyāsabhāsya on Yogasūtra, III.53, Nyāyavārttika-tātparyațtkā, I.1.4; Padmapada's commentary on the Prapancasaratantra, I.94-7, Rasavaiseșikasūtra, III.2, p. 124; Abhidharmākosa Bhāşya of Vasubandhu. See P. Chakravarti, Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 136. 22. Bhāmatt II.1.3, ata eva yogasastram vyutpādayitaha sma bhagavān vārşaganyah I 23 Vijñanabhiksu on Brahmasütra, I 1.4 attributes the verderin question to Vyasadeva. Vyāsa on Yogasutra, IV.13 quotes the verse with the reading māyeva. 24 Op.cit., pp. 138-41. 25. P. Chakravarti, op.cit., p. 125.

-...... Farşaganya, A New Samkhya Tradition 323 The quotations in later writings are attributed either to Varşagaņya or to the Vārsagaņas (Vārșagaņāh, Vārșagaņānām). We do not find an'y opinion or statement of Samkhya being ascribed ba Vrsagana.26 The Yuktidipika at one place27 quotes the authority ef a Vrsaganavira. No other source confirms the name of Vrsaganavira as a Samkhya writer. U.V. Shastri28 aptly takes it to sighify Vārsaganya, vtra meaning son. The use of the name Varsagana in plural implies that here we have,a reference to a school or group of students, disciples or Vollowers. But, in the absence of definite evidence about Vrsagana having been a Samkhya teacher, it is difficult to believe that he founded a school of his followers. It is Varsaganya who was reputed as a Samkhya 'authority. Hence, Varsaganas may refer'to his followers. There is nothing ifregular about the formation of the expression Varsagana to denote a follower alike of Vrsagana and Vārșaganya. This is provided for by Pāņini. 29 In the absence of any authentic information about the history of the school associated with Varsaganya,-it is not poșsible to attribute the views recorded as those of Varsaganas to any specific person and to place them in-a chronological sequence. It will not be illogical to suggest that these followers of Varsaganya were maintaining views originally propounded by Vārșaganya. So, for the purposes of our study of the history of Samkhya, we may attribute to Varsaganya nót only the quotations under his specific name but also those which are recorded as the views of the Varsaganas. It must, however, be emphasised that, in the case of views ascribed to Varsaganas the origin may be'attributed to Värsagaņya, but their enunciation in the available developed from was evidently the work of his followers. 26,4' U.V. Shastri, op. cit., p. 613 says that some of the statements in the name of Varsaganya occur in the Yuktidtpikd attually under the name of Vrsagaņa. 27. See infra, fn. 64. 28. Op. cit., p. 613, see also P. Chakravarti, op.cit., p. 137. 29 IV.2.III - kanvđdibhyo gotre.

324 Retrieving Samkhya History Contributions of Varsagaņya We cannot hazard any guess about the scope and contents of the text written by Varsaganya, its arrangement and division of topics. From the available quotations it seems to have been characterised by a strange mixture of, verses, sūtras, longer passages, and sometimes a discussion of other's views and vindication of the Samkhya position. In the absence of relevent evidence we cannot determine if all this was Varsaganya's own contribution or' some portions containing discussion and elaboration were supplied by his followers. ,1 Johnston& assigns Varsaganya and his school an important place in the history of Sämkhya. In his scheme of five phases Varsaganya represents the second phase, which belonged to the interval between the Katha Upanisad and the' Śvetsvatara Upanișad. In this phase Samkhya received a more systematic form Johnston mentions many new principles as being enunciated in this period, but does not check if they occur in the-quotations attfibuted to Vărșaganya. Moreovér, there is no evidence toindicate that Varsaganya appeared in such an early period of the history of Samkhya, long before the times of Pancasikha and even earlier than the theistic phase of Samkhya recorded in the Śvetāśvatara Upanişad. The important role of Varşaganya in the history.of Samkhya is based on the testimony oflater commentators whoquote Varsaganya as propounding important principles on certain vital points concerning Samkhya philosophy.#1 An important contribution of Varsaganya was the doetrine of pañcaparva avidya,32 or five ignorance causing the union of soul 30. Yuktidipika, pp. 39, 67, 72, 95, 102, 108, 132, 133, 145, 170; Vyāsa on Yogastitra, III. -53,, IV.13; Nyāyavarttika, 1.1,5; Nydyavārttikatat- paryattkd (Vijainagar edn.) p. 155; Samkhyatattvakaumudt on 47; Bhamati on Brahma-sütra, II.1.3. 31. Samkhyatattuakaumudt on 47. 32. XII.33.

Farşaganya, A New Samkhya Tradition 325

with physical elements. This principle otcurs in the Buddhacarita.33 On this basis Johnston3 infers that the Samkhya doctrines, as necorded in the Buddhacarita, were enunciated by Varsaganya. But, the argument is not convincing. The. Buddhacarita is silent about the source from which it derived its account of the Samkhya principles. The fact that Varsaganya is mentioned as a teacher of ithe pancaparvd avidyo does not mean that. all the accounts of Samkhya, in which a reference to pafcaparva avidyd occuts, were written by Varsaganya. The doctrine could as well have been accepted and retained by subsequent writers. Afundamental objection will be that, though Varsaganya is referred to as a teacher tof the pancaparvo puidyd, it has not been claimed that he was the mfirst or the only expoundet of the doctrine. Jt is not unlikely that the doctrine formed a part of the Samkhya system from an earlier time and Varsaganya elaborated it or gave further importance. to it. Hence, it will not belogical to attribute all the Samkhya principles as ènunciated in the Buddhacarita.to Vārsaganya. Another notable contribution attributed to Vārsagaņya by Keith35 and Frauwallner38 is the authorship of the Sasthitantra. This is based on the fact that Vacaspatimisra, supported by the commentator.Balarama, mentions Varsaganya's:verse about the nature of gunas as occurring in a work called Sasthitantrd. Another argument advanced by Frauwallner is that. Vacaspatimisra attributes to Varsaganya a quotation about thepancapara avidya. The five auidyds are the five viparyayas included in the fifty pratyaya-sargas, which were part of the formulafion of sasthitantras. Hence Varsaganya is to be. credited with the formulation of sasthitantra. The second argument is not definite. We cannot be aure when the five avidyas were included in the pratyaya-sargas. The fifty pratyaya-sargas are mentioned in the Devaladharmasutrd. The concept of sastitantra seems to have circulated before Vārșaganya's time. Significantly Isvarakrsna, wholoudly proclaims 33. Early Samkhya, p. 8. 34 .. Ibid., pp. 82-4. 35, The Samkhya System, p. 77.,, 36: History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I. p. 252.

326 Retrieving Samkhya History his faithfulness to sasthitantra, does not refer to the name of Vārșaganya. The attribution is opposed to the testimony of.other sources which credit Kapila, or more commonly Pancasikha, with the authorship of Sasthitantra. We have no definite solution of. the tangle. In view of the more likely attribution of Sasthitantra to an `earlier author, it may be suggested that Vacaspatimisra is wrong in saying that Varsaganya's verse in question occurs in a text named Sasthitantra. He, possibly by mistake, used the title of an earlier work for Varsaganya's text. P:Chakravarti37 has offered a novel explanation to reconcile the conflicting evidence. According to him, the original Sasthitantra was the work of Pancasikha,.Vārsagaņya simply revised it: But; thereis noevidence to'support thissuggestion. If we are not to reject any one of the conflicting traditions, we may :postulate that Sasthitantra,was the work of Pancasikha, the case of Kapila being. uncertain in,view of the mythological elements in the accounts and,that Varsaganya:also chose to name his text as Sasthitantra in consideration: of the central position of the sixty topics in the system of Samkhya. It would seem that Sāmkhya is earlier times was virtually identified with Sasthitantra. In this. connection-it.is interesting to note that some of the quotations from Pacasikha occurring in Vyāsa's Yogasūtrabhāsya -are attributed by the Yuktidipikā to Vārsaganya.38 ' "U.V. Shastri39 challanges the astription"of the original Sasthitantra to Varsaganya. He argues that according to Vārsaganya1 in the adisarga the pradhana, not influenced by purusa, has the quality of'not Being consciotis, which is totally opposed to a statement on the point attributed to the Sdsthitántra by the Matharavartti and the Gaudapadabhasya saying that pradhana is influenced by purusa.

wr -37. . Op.cit.pp. 126-7! ( יה ר

J38, P. Chakravarti, op.cit.pp115. Op.cit., pp. 613-14. 40. Yuktidipika, p. 102. See infra fn. 49. 4 41. On Samkhyakarika, 17-purusadhisthitam pradhanam pravarttate. .U.V. Shastri, op. cit., points out that this is also the view of Samkhyaşadadhydy! (or Samkhyapravacanasūtra) I.61,

Vārşaganya, A New Samkhya Tradition 327

The passage, containing a criticism of the Vaisesika theory of atoms, is attributed to Vārșagaņya by Vyasa."2This creates problems. It. would imply a late date for Varsaganya, providing.for the formulation of Vaisesika as a separate system of philosophy and also for the emergence of the practice of inter-school debates and discussions, when the formulation of one's own principles was not enough, and a system was required to criticise the views of others and to define one's own position. This would ill suit the chronological position of Varsaganya as the author of a Sasthitantra and the original propounder.,of some important principles Sāmkhya. İsvarakrsna43 claims that he omitted paravåda, in his, work. This tacitly implies that paravāda was-a notable feature of some of the Samkhya texts written before his times. There would he no difficulty in placing Varsaganya's text, with a passage criticising Vaisesika theory of atoms, before the times of Isvarakrsna. But, when we come to determine how, much time elapsed between. Varsaganya and Isvarakrsna, we cannot.be.on sure grounds. Some other quotations in later works also appear in the nature of discussions defending the Samkhya position against criticism by others. Thus, in answering the objection as to how a single entity can contain contradictory characteristics of pleasure, pain and delusion, Varsaganya argues that the forms and functions are contradictory only when they are in their intensity; the ordinary ones can coexist with those that are in their intensity -Likewise, in one quotation/ the Värsaganas seem to he arguing against the concept of the immutable eternity of an object, It says that even the entire universe (trailokya) enters into its past stage as it is not absolutely eternal,-but it does not lose its existence completely; it lies in its primary cause in a talent stage, and hence.cannot be perceived. The vinasa (destruction) is of two.types, that of the

42. Yogasütrabhdsya, III.53. 43. Samkhyakārika, 72- paravādaviparjitascāpi. 2م ر .44. Yuktidipikā, p. 72 - tatha ca bhagavan varsaganyah - rūpātisaya urtyatişayacca parasparena viruddhyante, samanyani tvatisayaih saha pravartante 1 45, Yuktidipika, p. 67.

328 Retrieving Samkhya History

tattvas at the time of the pralaya and that of others as temporary transformation. It is well-known that one point of criticism of the Samkhya system by, the Buddhists is that they maintain the existençe of adharmf (abiding principle) manifesting itselfthrough its dharma (properties). The present quotation seems to offer the explanation anticipating this criticism. We can form some idea of the important principles enunciated by Varsaganya. One such view was the refutation of the plurality of prakrti.4 The Yogasutrabhasya quotés Varsaganya to the effect that "since there is'ho difference as to limitation-in-extent or by reason of intervening-space or of species, there is no distinction in the (primary)root (or things)". This assumes significance, because it marks an important land-mark in the history of the evolution of Samkhya principles. From, Gunaratnasuri's commentary'on the Saddarsana-samuccayawe learn that whereas the ancient teachers of Samkhya subscribed to' the principle of plurality of prakrtis, later teachers believed 'in one eternal pradhāna. Vārsaganya seems to have discussed in detail the nature of pradhana (or praktti) and to have defended the Saikhya position. In the Yuktidipika we have two quotations on this point. In one duotation the analogy (distanta) of the relation between male and female has been referred to. The followers of Varsaganya mention that the interaction Between prakrti and purusa might be compared to the manner in which man and women become sexually aroused by contemplating or noticing their unconscious bodies. U.V.Shastri49 points out that this was on early dnalogy used in Samkhya circles

46." Yogabhasyd, III"531-2' mtrtivyauddhijatibhedabhavannasti * »mūlaprtRakatvamjti barştıganyah .1 91. .47. 1 Samkhya section -- Maulika -sāmkhyā hyātmānamātmanam prati prthakpradhanar vadanti, uttare tu samkhyah sarvatmasvapyekam nityam pradhanamiti prapannāh ļ. 48. tathā ca vārşaganāh pathanti - pradhānaprąvritirapratyayā purusenaparigrhyamana`disatge bartate iti 1p. 102. barşagananāntu yatha stripumsariramacetanānāmuddisyetaretaram- pravrttistaha pradhanasyetyayam drstantah ! - p. 170. 49. Op. cit., pp. 590-1.

Varşaganya, A New Samkhya Tradition 329

and is mentioned in the Mahabharata,50 the Sadadhyayt51 (Samkhyapravacanasūtra) and the Matharavrtti.52 According to the other quotation, the followers of Varsaganya maintain that pradhana functions from the very beginning of creation quite independently of purusa. Vārșagaņya evidently had discussed the nature of purușa as well. This is indicated by a quotation in the Yuktidtpika, 53 but there is no possibility of our being able to determine the points which Vārșagaņya detailed about purușa. Here the followers of Vārsagaņya are quoted as maintaining, on the question of the relationship between purusa and buddhi, that the purusa, having come upon the urttis of buddhi, conforms'itself to those transformations. A.discussion of the nature of the gunas formed an important feature of the treatment of Samkhya by Vārsaganya. In one verse attributed to him by Vacaspatimisra he refers to the ultimate nature of the gunas which cannot be directly perceived, but can be inferred with the help of their visable manifestation.54 On the question of the three gunas, though apparently different, cooperating together to bring about,manifestation, the Yuktidipika55 quotes Vārșaganya. The quotation says "When the rüpas and urttis are developed to their full extent, they, of course, oppose one ånother, but ordinary rupas and urttis are able to function in cooperation with the more intense or fully developed ones."

50. XII.310.12. 51. II.9. 52. On Kđrikā, 21. 53. tathā ca vārşaganāh pathanti - "buddhivrttyāvisto hi pratyaya- tvenānuvarttamāndmanuyāti puruşah" iti 1 - p. 95. 54. The verse is quoted, without mentioning the source, by Yogasütrabhāşya, IV.13. - gunānām paramam rūpami na, drstipathamrcchati l yattu drstipatharh praptar tanmayaiva sutucchakam !! Itis Vacaspatimisrà (Bhamatt on Brahmasutra II.1.2. 3. who ascribes it to Yogasttra of Varaşaganya. 55. vārşagaņānam pradhānāt mahānutpadyate - p. 72:

330 Retrieving Samkhya History

Vārșaganya possibly devoted considerable space to a discussion of the evolution of tattvas from pradhana. The first to evolve from pradhāna is mahat.56 Varsaganya brings out the characteristic qualities of mahat. One passage quoted in the Yuktidipika mentions the view of the followers of Varsaganya that there is one general mahat derived from prakrti.57 According to the second passage,58 the followers of Varsaganya say that mahat, which is mere linga, cannot be comprehended; it is not fo be distinguished in the form of effect and cause, it appears as another tattva with distinct characteristics. The emphasis given to ahamkara by the followers of Vārşagaņya is recorded in the Rasvaisesikasūtra.59 : By the time of Varsaganya the concept of tanmatras had come to acquire an important place in the Samkhya system. But, it did not settle down to a fixed position. According to the Yuktidipikā, whereas some took the tanmatras to have a uniform single form, Vārsaganya described them as having more than one form.60 This means that "each subsequent subtle element is made up of its own unique essence in combination with the essences ofits predecessors sothat sabda is pure sound, sparsa is pure contact plus puré'sound, rūpdis pure form plus pure contact plus pure sound, and so forth". Varsaganya made.significant contributions to the concept of karanas. According to the Yuktidlpika, the followers of.Vārsaganya give the number of karanas to be eleven,61 differing from others who mention thirteen karanas, consisting of five organs of action, five organs of knowledge62 and three internal karanas. In another passage the Yuktidipiko quotes Varsaganya about the nature ofthe

56. Yuktidlpikā, p. 108. 57.5 sādhāraņo hi mahān prakrtitvāt iti pārşagaņānām paksah 1-p. 140. 58. yadi 'yatha varsaganā ahuh, -- lingamātro mahānasamvedyah kāryakāraņarupeņāvisisto visīştalakşaņena tathā syāt tatvāntaram 1

III.2, p. 124 âhamkārikāņtti vārsaganyah (nah). aulukyah -p. 133. 59. punarbhautikāni 1 60. ekarüpāni tanmātrānilyanye ekottarāņiti vārşaganyah 1 - p. 108. 61 Yuktidtpikā, p. 133 -karaņam ... ekādasavidham iti vārsagaņāh 1 62 Yuktidtpika, p. 132-refers to Pancadhikarana and others mentioning only ten.

Vārşaganya, A New Sārkhya Tradition 331

karanas.63 It says that the extraordinary accomplishments of the karanas are empowered from without through the inherent power of prakrti, whereas ordinary functioning otcurs from within. The Varsaganas maintained an independent stand on the question of the ksetrajña (soul) appearing in a body. Padmapāda says that, according to them, it enters the embryonic body through the juice prepared from the food taken by the mother.64 The work composed by Varsaganya contained an account of the sources of. knowledge (pramanq). The nature of the different pramanas and their justifications were possibly dicussed. In one quotation pratyaksa is defined by the followers of Varsganya as the activity of ears and other sense-organs.65'Another quotation in the Nyāyavārtika defines anumana66 as ariving at, on account of the perception of one aspect of an established relation, the other aspect of a relation. The Yuktidipikas7 attributes to Vrsaganavira the view that the knowledge of an'object, which is not immediate and is obstructed, can be acquired through signs and scriptures and quotes two verses defining pratyaksa as the knowledge resulting from the direct contact between senses and objects; the same is known as smrti when it goes beyond senses and is available through bhāvanā; the knowledge through bhavand later reappearing through senses is called pratyabhi jñāna.

63. karandnām mahatt svabhavativrttih pradhanat svalpa ca svatah iti vāşaganyah l - Yuktidtpikā, p. 108 64., Padmapāda on Prapañcasāratantra, I.94-7 - (kşetrajñah) mâturā- hrtādāhārād yo rasah pākajah taddvāreņa garbhasarīram visatīti vārșaganah. 65 .. Yuktidipikā, p. 39 - śrotrādivrttiriti vārsaganah, i 66. Nyâyavārtika, I.1-5,, - sambandhādakasmāt pratyakşa- täccheşasiddhiranumānaml 67. On Karikd, 30, p 130 - tathā ca urşaganavtreņāpyuktam bhavati " ... andgatavyavahita - vişayajñanam tu lingagamabhyām lāha ca - vişayendriyam jatam punarbhavanayđ smrti II 1 a'*U.V. Shastri, op.cit., p. 613; fn. reproduces only the first verse and expresses doubt about its being attributed to Vrsaganavira.

332 Retrieving Sämkhya History Vasubandhų,68 in his Abhidharmakosa, ațtributes to the followers of Vārsaganya the theory of Satkaryavada: "According to them there is neither production of something new nor extinction of something existent, what exists is always existent, what does not exist will never become existent." The Yuktidtpikd69 in a quotation attributes to theVärsaganas a discussion in support of the position that the entire universe form its stage of manifestation enters the stage of past; but it does not lose its existence; it lie's in its latent stage in its primary"cause änd hence cannot be perceived. The natúre of vinäsa in the of tattuas differs from that in the cases of other objècts. Asanga or Maitreya-Asanga (fourth century) in his Yogacärabhūmi attributes to Vårsaganya this view. He says: 'As to the nature of the doctrine according to which the effect exists in the cause, a certain śramana or brahmana holds this opinion saying that the effect in fact exists perpetually through perpetual time and constantly through constant time; such a one is Varsaganya.70 Though the view is in effect the same as that attributed to Vārsaganya by Vasubandhu, there is a clear difference in the wording of the exposition. The quotation given by Yasubandhu, is supported by other sources. It would follow that Asanga is referring to the views of Vārșaganya, but not in his original words.

68. See Stcherbatsky; 'Central Conception of Buddhism, p. 75 Yogasütrabhaşya, IV.12 quotes the first portion as na asati satah 7 sambhavah na cd asti sato vināsa iti lVātsyāyana (Nydyasūtrabhāșya, [:1:29) attributes to the Samkhya philosophers this part, though worded slightly differently. 69. D. Seyfort Ruegg in Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. VI (1962),'pp. 137-40. * 70. tathā ca varşaganāh pathanti -"tadetat trailokyam vyakterapaiti na sattvät l apetamapyasti vinasapratisedhat 1l samsargāccāsya saukşmayam saukşmyäccanupalabdhih I tasmād vyaktyapagamo vinasah Isa tu dvividhah-asargaraplayat tatvāndm, kiñcitkālāntard- vasthanādițateşām iti.” - p. 67. The quotation occurs with some changes in the Yogasutrabhasya, IIL 13.

Värsaganya, A New Samkhya Tradition 333

Omission of.Vārşaganya Earlier we have pointed out that the name of Vārsaganya does not occur in the lists of, ancient Samkhya authorities, even though authentic quotations recording his views are found in several works. The omission of his name by Isvarakrsna cotild, no doubt, have been due to the limitation of space. But, there was possibly another reason. The development of Samkhya from Kapila to Pañcasikha was in a specific direction. The period after Pahcasikha witnessed a rich growth of Samkhya literature and a multiplicity of views on different points. No single list can claim to be exhaustive. The compilers of the lists had their own reasons for including some names 'and omitting others. We offer a possible explanation' for İsvarakrsņa omitting the name of Vārsagaņya. Whereas Īsvarakṛsņa follows the tradition which began with Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha, Vārșaganya adopts a differenț view on some important issues.71 It is not unlikely that Isvarakrsna did not mention the name of Vārșaganya as be considered him an outsider to Samkhya tradition mentioned by him and to which he himself belonged.

Vārșaganya in the Chinese Tradition The Chinese tradition preserves some interesting information about Vārșaganya and his importance in the history of Sāmkhya. There are two slightly different accounts ip Chinese sources. One account is found in Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu (Vasubandhucarita).72 The other account is given by Kuei-chi, the pupil of Hsuan Tsang.73 According to Paramārtha, Vārsaganya was a sage of the Sāmkhya school and was known mythologically as the "King of the ....... Nāgas":'Vindhyavāsa, who learned the Samkhya system from Vārșaganya, revised the content of the system and composed some couplets summarising the revised doctrines. Paramärtha refers to a debate between Vindyaväsa and Buddhamitra, the Buddhist, 71. A.P. Mishra, Tattvakaumudtprabha, Introduction, p. 22. 72. J. Takakusu, "Life of Vasubandhu", Toung Pao, July 1904. 73. J. Takakusu, La Samkhya Karika, Introduction, pp. 38-40.

334 Retrieving Samkhya History

who was the teacher of Vasubandhu. The account makes Vārsaganya a contemporary not only of Vindhyavasa, Buddhamitra and Vasubandhu but also of Vikramaditya and his crown-prince Bāladitya, who later became a patron of Buddhism.' Kuei chi refers to the important position of Vārsaganya in the history ofSämkhya. The Sämkhya school was formerly split up into eighteen groups, the head of which was 'Ba-li-sha', meaning 'rain' (varşa). His associates were all called the 'Rain-host' (Värsaganya). The 'Gold-seventy'(Hiranyasaptati) is the work of them.74 Kuei-chi further refers to a debate between a. Samkhya teacher and a Buddhist, for which the Samkhya teacher composed in seventy verses a treatise called the "Gold-seventy"75. The Chinese tradition identifies the "Gold seventy" with the Samkhya-sastra or the Chinese version of the Samkhyakārika.78 The events and persons mentioned in the two accounts are identified. Takakusu77 and following him; Garbe78 and Keith79 identify Vindhyavāsa with Īsvarakrsna! Theidentification, if accepted, will bring Varsaganya very close to Isvarakrsna in timė and will proyide ,clues to, the date of Vārşaganya. The dates of Vikramāditya (identified with Candragupta II or Skandagupta), his son Bālāditya, Buddhamitra, Vasubandhu, Vindhyavāsa and Isvarakrșna, all become relevant to u's. The dates for the composition of Paramartha's Life ofVasubandhu and the Chinese translation of Samkhyakarika will have important bearing on the subject. Apparently, there is a case for reading in Paramärtha's account of the Samkhya writings of Vindhyavāsa a reference to the Samkhyakarika and for identifying "Gold-Seventy"

74. Takakusu, "Astudy of Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu, and the Date of Vasubandhu",JRAS, 1905, p. 49. 75. Ibid., 72. 76. Takakusu, "La Sāmkhyakarika" (I), pp. 38-40. 77. Bulletin de I Ecole Francaise d Extreme Orient, IV, p. 59; Toung Pao July, 1904, pp. 47-51. 78. Die Samkhya Philosophię, pp. 77-83., 79 History of Samkhya Philosophy, p. 73.

Varşagaņya, A New Sāmkhya Tradition 335

(Hiranyasaptati or Suvarņasaptati) with the Samkhyakarika which contains seventy kārikas.80 But, there are serious difficulties in accepting the identification.81 The Yuktidipika clearly distinguishes between Vindhyavasin and Isvarakrsna.82 Moreover, the views of Vindhyavāsin, as preserved in other texts,83 are totally opposed to what Isvarakisna says on those points." Larson85 is justified in opposing the identification on the ground that the Samkhyakārika is not a polemical text and could not have been written for the purposes of a debate. His suggestion that the Chinese tradition has identified two separate texts or events is quite plausible. A tradition about a debate between a Buddhist and Samkhya teacher, who belonged to the school of the followers of Varsaganya, and was possibly Vindhyavāsa, became mixed up with the subsequent composition of the Samkhyakārikā or the Samkhyasaptati by Īśvarakrsņa.86

Date of Vārsaģaņya All this helps us determine roughly the place of Varsaganya in the broad outlines of the history of Samkhya. If the ascription of the same passage to both Pancasikha and Vārsagaņya is taken to be factually correct, we may infer that Varsaganya possibly adopted pasages from Pañcasikha. Thus, Varsaganya will have to be placed 'after Pancasikha, possibly not much removed in time from him. The value of the Chinese sources lies in establishing that Varsaganya belonged to the period before Vindhyavāsa, who is said to have rewritten the book composed earlier by Varsaganya. When the Chinese tradition mentions Vindhyaväsa as studying with his 80., Samkhyakārika, 72 - saptaťyām kila ye'rthah i 81. H.D. Sharma, "The Samkhya teachers", Festschrift Mori Winternitz, pp. 228-9. 82 P. 4. 83. Yuktidipika, p. 108; Kumārila's Ślokavārtika, pp. 293, 704; Bhoja on Yogasatra, IV.22; Medhatithi on Manu I.45; Gunaratna on Sarvadarsanasamgraha, pp. 102, 104; Syadvadamanjarl (Chowkhamba), p. 117. .84 Gopinath Kaviraj, Jayamangald, ed. by H. Sharma, Introduction. p. 7. -85. Classical Samkhya, p. 155. 86. For a detailed analysis of the Chinese evidence see infra chapter 18.

336 Retrieving Samkhya History

teacher Värsaganya, it possibly means that he belonged to the school of Varsaganya. If the passage is literally, interpreted.as referring to Vindhayavāsa as the direct disciple of Vārsaganya, it would make Varsaganya the senior contemporary of Vindhyavāsa. There is no positive indication of the date to which Varsaganya belonged. Later tradition does record the name of a Vedic sage'as Vrşagana. If we postulate that Vrsagana and his son Varsaganya were known to Panini, they will have to be placed quite sometime before Pāņini, but we cannot determine the precise duration' of this gap. In the Mahabharata Viśvāvasu, the Gandharva king, includes Varsaganya in the long list of sages and'scholars from whom he learnt Safnkhya. Clearly the list does hot have any pretensions to maintaining a chronological sequence.87 Hence, we cannot deduce anything about the date of Varsaganya from his position in this list. We can only infer that at the time of the incorporation of this particular chapter in the Moksadharmaparva of the Santiparva of the Mahabhārata Vārsaganya enjoyed the reputation of.being an ancient.Samkhya authority. Considering the various problems in fixing thedate of the Mahabharata in general and of the Sāntiparva (and the Moksadharmaparva section) in particular, we will not-be wide off the mark if we placę Varsaganya, the Sāmkhya authority mentioned in'it, as being not later than the fifth-fourth centuries.BC.88 The dates generally suggested for Panini will also not go against this

87. ,"Hare Visvāvasu claims that later.(tadanantaram) he acquired the knowledge not only from the sages and scholars named by him but also from Rudra, Visvarupa gods, pitrs and the demons-Mbh, XII.318.62- 3. In the names enumerated by Visvavasu Jaigtsavya appears first and his own father Kasyapa is mentioned last. The name of Kapila, occurring in the middle and after Jaigisavya, Asita, Devala, Parāsara, Varșaganya, Bhrgu and Pancasikha, shows the disturbed chronological sequence of names in the list. 88 U.V. Shastri, op.cit., pp. 609-11, fn. 2 on the basis of the Mahabharata reference places Varsaganya before the Mahabharata War. We need not discuss this view, because it involves a confusion between the Mahabharata War and the composition of the Mahabhdrata text. Shastri places Varsaganya before Paņini and Buddha. It may be conceded that Varsaganya came before Panini, but Shastri's argument for placing him before Buddha is not convincing.

Vārşaganya, A New Sāmkhya Tradition 337

date. A respectable antiquity for Vārsaganya is indicated, when authors, not only of Sämkhya works89 but also of other philosophical systems,9 venerate him with the honourable appellation ofbhagavan. The recorded facts about the history of the Samkhya are not helpful in fixing the date of Varsaganya. Among the commentators the author of the Yuktidipika alone includes him in the list of Samkhya teachers who preceded Isvarakrana. We cannot be sure that the names are listed in the correct historical séquence. It may, however, be noted that Varșaganyà appears after Harīta, Baddhali, Kairatà, Paurika, Rsabheśvara, Pañcādhikaraņa and Patañjali but before Kauņdinya and Mūka. This will give him a late"date, specially when Patañjali, appårently associated more closely with Yogą, is placed in the second century Bc, on the basis of his identification with the author of the Mahabhasya.91

Vārșagaņya in Isibhāsíyāim Modern scholars have failed to notice the important information which the Jain tradition records about .Varsaganya .. In the Isibhasiyaim92 section (ajjhayana-adhyayana)'18 deals with the views of Varisava (Varisava-kanhena arhatā isina buitam). In the body 'of the section the name of the rsi is easily identified with Vārisakaņhā referred to in the Thananga.93 Walther Schubring94 takes Vārisakaņhā and Varisavakaņha to be based on Vārșagaņya. In the Sanskrit fikd on the Isibhasiyaim"5 the name of the rsi is

89. Yuktidipika, p. 72; Samkhyatattuąkaumudt on Karika 47. 90. Bhamatl on Vedantasūtra, II.1.3. , ,91. See supra chapter 14 where we have suggested that Patanjali, the Samkhya teacher, is to be placed in the bracket c. 500-400 BC. 92 L.D. Series 54, ed. by Walther Schubring, pp. 34-7. 93 390a. On this basis Sagarmal Jain, Rsibhasita: Eka Adhyayana (Jaipur, 1988), pp. 54-5 restores the name as Varișena Krșna. The edifors of the Prakrit Bharati edition equate Varisava with Varapa, : but ignore the second part Kanha. In the first Samgrahant of the text the reading is Varise Kanhe. * 94. Isibhdsiyaim, Introduction, p. 4. 95. P. 140.

338 Retrieving-Samkhya Histary

restored as Värsaganya. The presentation of the views of the rsi in the present case, as also in other cases, has been conditioned by the uniform pattern of the structure of the section, the style of repeating set phrases and sentences, particularly in the introductory part and the conclusion, and the retention of peculier Jain concepts of eighteen pāpa-karmas with related terms pānātivāena, pariggaha, arati and micchadamsana. The attempt, on the part of the author, to weave the different sections of the text into a unified whole and not to leave it to assume the character of a mere collection diverse views, is indicated in the present section by a reference to the created beings bearing the consequences of their evil deeds and remaining in the cycle of worldly existence as mentioned in the ninth section (navamuddesagamenam). Even with this limitation, we can get a rough idea of some of the characteristic views of the rsi and the terminology used by him. The opening sentence of the section says that the soul (jtve), which does not have self-control (ayate), uses strong means or violence (vajjam).96 By not resorting to sinful acts; beginning with killing beings and going up to false philosophy, and by controlling the five sense-organs, including ears, he gives up violence and overcomes the punishment of cutting of hands and feet 'and attains eternally the auspicious- abode (sivamacala-java citthanti).97 To illustrate the statement that in ordinary circumstances strong means are used a verse is reproduced saying that the bird uses the blows of its beak and the water-carrier uses thong and ropes.98 As no text written by Varsaganya is available, we cannot check the correctness of the views and passages ascribed to him in the Isibhasiyaim. The available quotations from his work are very, few and hence no conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the absence

96. ayate khalu bho jwe vajjam samādiyati. 97 pāņāivātaveramanenam java micchadamsanasall-averamaņeņam soinya 5-niggahenam no vaijar samajjinitta hatthaccheyaņaim pāyaccheyaņāim jāva domaņastāim vltivatittā sivamacala - jāva cițțanti. 98 sakuņl samkupayaghatam ca varattam rajjugar tahā I vārisattadharo ccaiva vibhagammi vihāvae 1I

,

Vārşaģanya, A New Sāmkhya Tradition 339

of any quotation parallel to the passages in the Isibhāsiyaim. The views ascribed to different rsis appear to be qenuine and authentic, though their presentation is affected by the fixed pattern of structure and style of expression and the attempt to accommodate them within the framework of Jain principles.9 The expressions ayate,100 jiva, soindiya 5-niggahenam and sivamacala could very well have been taken from Varsaganya's work. Some texts and passages recording an early phase of Samkhya, when it was closely connected with Yoga, have parallel concepts and terms. On the basis of the analysis of other sections101 we can take the verse to have been based on the original writing of Vārsaganya. The historical identity of most of the rsis, whose views are collected in the Isibhasiyaim, is clear. Some of them are, no-doubt, .....

taken from the Brahmanical tradition about semi-historical sages. The Isibhasiyaim, though not included in the list of Jain Agama texts, enjoys a high respect being classed as a Kaliya text, which is approved for the study-hours in the daily time-table. It looks like an early text in the category of the Ayāra, Sūyagada, Uttarājjhāyā and Dasaveyāliya. It breathes an atmosphere free from sectarian orthodoxy, which developed in later phases of the history of Jainism. It has to be placed long before the times of the Viyahapannatti. It appears to be more under the influence of Parsvanātha. 102 Thus, the rsis, whose views are recorded in the text, were possibly either earlier than Mahavira or were his close contemporaries. They could not have belonged to a period long after Mahāvira.103 Sagarmal Jain, in his recent study of the text demonstrates that it was composed sometime between the fifth century Bc and third century BC. Thus, is Vārsaganya is to be identified with Varisavakanha of the Isibhasiyaim, he is to be placed by the fifth-fourth centuries BC.

99. See Appendix II. 100. It is derived from the root yam 'to control, restrain' and reminds us of the term yati meaning 'one who has controlled his passions'. 101. See Appendix II. 102. Ibid. 103. See Appendix II.

340 Retrieving Sämkhya History A éarlier date is not ruled out by the evidence of the Isibhasiyaim.

Conclusion In the history of Samkhya Varsaganya belongs to the gap between Pañcasikha and Isvarakrsna. He expressed significant views on some important points, sometime taking a stand different from that of the mainstream, represented by Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha, which was supported and strangthened later by Isvarakrsna. He is to be placed in the phase before Isvarakrsna, which was characterised by the writing ofākhyāyikas and paravāda. Varsaganya also.wrote in the form of these categories, challenging the views of other systems and defending the Samkhya position against the criticism of others.

18

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Sāmkhya

VINDHYAVĀSIN1 occupies an important place in the history ofSāmkhya. On certain vital points in the Samkhya philosophy he expounded his distinttive views, radically dpposed to the standardised system presented by Isvarakrsna. He is engulfed in controversies about his veryidentity. Modern scholars have expressed doubt abbut his name, the period when he flourished, and his relationship with Isvarakrsna. The confusion is increased by the ancient Chinese sources, which provide conflicting evidence amenable to varying interpretations.

Name In the Chinese tradition in Paramārtha's Vasubandhucarita (Life of Vasubandhu) the name occurs as Vindhyavasa .? In ancient Indian texts įt is generally spelt as Vindhyavāsin.3 Kumārila mentions two readings, Vindhyanivasa4 and Vindhyavasin5 at two

1. We have followed the form Vindhyaväsin evidenced in Indian sources, but, in referring to the accounts of Paramartha and Kuei-chi, have used the name Vindhyavasa. 2. Takakusu, "A Study of Paramartha's Life of Vasubandhu" and the Date of Vasubandhu, JRAS (1905), 47-50;"La Samkhyakārikā, étudiée à Ia lumière de sa version chinoise (I)", BEFEO, Tome IV Hanoi, 1904,

U.V. Shastri, Samkhyadarsana ka itihāsa, pp. 521-6, 636-8. pp. 407. 3. 4. Ślokavārtika, Akrtivāda 76. 5. Ślokavārtika, Ātmavāda 62.

342 Retrieving Samkhya History different places. Umbeka in his commentary6 explains Vindhyanivāsa as standing for Vindhyavāsin. Medhātithi7 gives the name of the Samkhya philosopher as Vindhyavasa. The variant forms of the name create a doubt about the original name and its significance. G.J. Larson,8 without discussing, the question, uniformly adopts the name as Vindhyavāsa. A.B. Keith9 takes Vindhyavasin and Vindhyavasa as two distinct persons, the first being a Samkhya teacher and the second a Mimāmsa teacher. But, this distinction is misplaced. Medhatithi and Paramartha both very clearly mention Vindhyavasa also as a Sämkhya teacher.

RUDRILA Kamalaśīla, in his commentary on the Tattvasamgraha,10 quotes a verse which shows that Rudrila was the original name11 and the appellation,Vindhyavāsin (an inhabitant ofthe Vindhya mountains) was fully justified in his case, because, he like a beast, considered curd and milk to be the same. But, the name Rudrila is mentioned only in this source; it is not confirmed by any other ancient-record. U.V. Shastri12 points out another reading of the second line of the verse in question, as vadata vindhyavāsitvam khyāpitam vindhyavāsinā. This demolishes the suggestion that Rudrila was the original name of the philosopher. This reading gives a happier meaning. According to it, by saying that curd is the same as milk and milk is the same as curd, Vindhyavasin has demonstrated his being an inhabitant of the Vindhya mountain (a beast). Here there is a play on the name Vindhyavāsin. This gives a natural form of expression to the verse and proves that Vindhyavasin was the real

6. On Šlokavārtika, Akrtivāda 76. 7. On Manu, I.55 8. .Classical Samkhya, pp. 141-4. 9. Karmamimmamsā, p. 59. 10. Tattvasamgrahapanjika, p. 22, line 26. 11. P. Chakravarti, Origin qnd Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 144; Also U.V. Shastri, op. cit., p. 633; A.P. Mishra, Samkhyadarsana kl aitihāsika paramparā, p. 173. 12. Op cit., p. 639, fn. 14.

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 343

name of the philosopher. The form Vindhyavasin is not queer as a hame. Similar names are evidenced in the ancient period, and the hame enjoys currency even in modern times. Thus, we do not see any reason for rejecting the continuous Indian tradition naming the Samkhya philosopher as Vindhyavāsin.

ASSOCIATION WITH VINDHYA

The vavant forms, nivāsa, väsa and vāsin, suffixed to Vindhya suggest that they were possibly to intended to refer to the abode of the Samkhya philosopher in the Vindhya region. This would imply that Vindhyavasin or Vindhyavasa was not the original name. The Sāmkhya philosopher came to be designated bý this appellation. It stuck to his name and gained such a wide currency that it pushed his original name into oblivion. According to Paramartha's "Life of'Vasubandhu"13'was Pi-li- cha-kia-na, the teacher of Vindhyaväsa, who was associated with the Vindhya mountain. He was the king of the Nagas. He assumed the form of a sage and lived at the foot of the Vindhya mountain. This would mean that Vindhyavasa came to be associated with the Vindhya mountain through his teacher. Paramärtha further says that, when Vasubandhy learnt about the defeat of his teacher Buddhamitra at the hands of Vindhyavāsa, he came to Ayodhyā fróm Puruşapura (Peśāwar) to challenge Vindhyavāsa to a debāte. He could not meet Vindhyavasa. He searched for him and at last learnt about his death in the Vindhya mountain. In Paramartha's account the Vindhya mountain is associated with Vindhyavāsa in two ways-his teacher-lived at its foot and he himself died there. In the Chinese account these two elements were possibly ihserted on the basis of the literal meaning of the name Vindhyavasa. Both the facts are flimsy creations of imagination. We can understand that when Vindhyavasa was not accepted as a regular name tradition. The two details were inserted to suit its literal meaning. Both are not intrinsically connected with the person and career of the Sämkhya teacher. Considering the distance of space, and

13. JRAS, 1905, pp. 33-53.

344 Retrieving Samkhya History possibly of time involved, we can explain such concoctions. In the account of Paramartha Vindhyavasa is retained as the name of the Samkhya scholar; there is no suggestion of a- different, original name and of the'appellation. Vindhyavasa being acquired later on account of an association with the Vindhya mountain.

VINDHYAVĀSIN AND VYĀDI The confusion is further confounded by the fact that, in some grammatical texts Vyādi is also referred to as a Vindhyavāsin. On this basis. Tanusukaram Sharma" identifies Vindhyavasin with Vyādi. It has been shown that Vyadi was the real name of the scholar.15 He was also known as Vindhyavasin, possibly hecause of hia abode in the Vindhyas, Vindhyavasin was not his regular name. H.S. Joshi16 speaks of two Vindhyavasins, Vyādi as Vindhyavāsin I and Vindhyavāsa, the senior contemporary of Vasubandhu, as Vindhyavasin II. But, there is no need for postulating two Vindhyavasins. The earlier teacher was named as Vyādi. He was not named as Vindhyavasin. It is the later teacher, whose Samkhya affiliations are well established, who was known as Vindhyavāsin. We find in Vacaspatimisra's commentary 'Tattvavaisāradi a reference to a sage named Mandayya who had achieved spiritual powers (siddhis) by the use of rasayana. He was also designiated as Vindhyaväsin.17

IDENTIFICATION OF VINDHYÁVASA WITH ISVĄRAKRSNA Some modern scholars. have added to the,existing.confusion by identifying Vindhyavasin with Isvarakrsna, the author .of the Samkhyakārikā. The, statements about Vasubandhu and Vindhyavāsa create serious chronological difficulties, especially about the relative position of Vindhyavāsa and Isvarakrșna, to tide

14. 'Matharavrtti (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series), Introduction, pp. 8-4. 15. P. Chakravarti, op. cit., pp. 142-4: 16. Samkhyayogadarsaria Ra jtrņoddhārà, p. 59. 17. Vyāsabhasya on Yogasūtra IV.1 - yathā mandavyo muntrasdyanopayogad vindhyavastti I

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 345

over which Takakusu18 too Isvarakrsna and Vindhyavāsa as the same man. The suggestion was accepted by Garbe,19 A.B. Keith20 and B.G. Tilak .? 1 The supposed conflict arising out of the Chinese accounts and the chronological problems issuing out of it can be resolved.22 The suggestion that Vindhyavāsa and Isvarakrsna are identical arose due to a mixing up of the accounts of Paramärtha and Kuei-chi. 'According to Paramartha, Vindhyavāsa had re- worked the Samkhya system which he had learnt from his teacher Vārsaganya and had composed some couplets summarising the revised doctrines. He further says that Vasubandhu, who could not engage Vindhyavasa in a debate as the latter had died, composed the-Paramārthasaptati as a rejoinder to the Sāmkhya doctrines. According to Kuei-chi, a Sämkhya teacher, for the purposes of his debate with a Buddhist, composed the "Gold Seventy", a text in seventy verses. He further, refers to the.Pqramarthasaptati as a rejoinder composed by Vasubandhu.23 Modern scholars, whoidentify Vindhyavasa with Isvarakrsna, rely on the fact that in the catalogue of Nanjio the "Gold Seventy" is the Samkhyasastra or.the Chinese version of the Samkhyakarika.24 But there are several weak links in this chain of arguments. Kuei-chi does not mention the name either of Vindhyavasa or of Isvarakrsna. The only name, or rain occurring in his account, is that of Varsa (Ba-li-sha or Rain). Kuei-chi does not attribute the authorship of the "Gold Seventy" to any of these two. Actually he refers to this text as the, work of the associates of Varsa, who were called Vārșaganya (Rain-hosț). Thè text composed-by Īsvarakrsna is named as the Sāmkhyqkarika. This text cannot be identified with the "Gold Seventy" mentioned by Kuei-chi. The Indian tradition over the centuries retains the name Samkhyakarika uniformly

18. JRAS, 1905, pp. 33-53. 19. Die Samkhyà Philosophie, pp. 77-83. 20. The Samkhya System, pp. 76-7. 21. Gitarahasya (1938, 6th edn.), p. 188, fn. 22 .. See infra under "Chiness Account about Vindhyavāsa". 23. Takakusu in BEFEO, op. cit., pp. 38-40. 24. Takakusu, in JRAS, op.cit., p. 47.

346 Retrieving Samkhya History without. any indication that it was ever called the Saptati, Samkhyasaptati or Suvarna (or Hiranya)-saptati. It is only kārikā 72, whose attribution to Isvarakrsna is not beyond suspicion, which refers to all'the subjects of the sasthitantra being present in, the saptati (seventy verses). But this cannot be construed to suggest the title Saptati for the text. Kuei-chi himself makes two different statements about the "Gold Seventy",At one place he refers to it as the work of the Varsaganyas. In another context he says that a Samkhya teacher composed the treatise the "Gold Seventy" for the purposes of a debate, with a Buddhist. The identification of Vindhyavasin with Isvarakrsna has been suggested to overcome the confusion and chronological difficulties presented in the Chinese 'sources. The Chinese texts seem to assöciate the composition of the "Gold Seventy" with'the name of Vindhyavasin whereas Nanjio's Catalogue mentions the Sāmkhyakarikā of Isvarakrsņa, known as the Sāmkhyasastra, to be the "Gold Seventy". We have shown25 that there is no compelling reason to accept the suggested identification of the Gold Seventy with the Sainkhyakarika. The confusion in the Chinese texts'can be resolved in a better, manner without taking recourse to the theory of identificátion of Vindhyavasa with Isvarakrsna. 'The long philosophical tradition in India does not contain the slightest indication of the two names standing for one and the same person. In Indian 'texts the philosophical views, ascribed to Vindhyavasin on many àn important are so violently opposed to those of Isvarakrsna that they would 'amount to that person blowing hot and cold at the same time. On this subject the testimony of. the Yuktidipika is very clear. At many places, in discussing the philosophical position of Isvarakrana, it refers to"the view of Vindhyavasin, which was opposed to Isvarakrsna and goes on to maintain the opinion of Isyarakrsna.25 The position is made very clear when it says that Iśvarakrsna does not describe jijñāsa and

25. See infra under section "The Date of Vindhyavāsin - Vindhyavasin and Isvarakrşņa - Kanagasąttr( -. , ( ' d. 26. See U.V. Shastri, op.cit., pp. 638-9; A.P-Mishra, op.cit., p. 175.

-"

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 347

other members of a syllogistic reasoning, because they have already «been discussed by Vindhyaväsin and other authoritative teachers.27 If the two had been identical the logical explanation on the part of the Yuktidipika would have been to point out that Isvarakrsna has discussed this in another work of his. Later Indian texts refer to the characteristic views of ·Vindhyavasin. They were familiar with Isvarakrsna. But, nowhere do they hint at the two being identical. Ancient scholars like Haribhadrasuri refer to both Vindhyavāsin. and Isvarkrsna respectively. S.N. Dasgupta28 points out that Gunaratna mentions Isvarakrsna and Vindhyaväsin as two authorities29 and that the anustubh verse of Vindhyavasin quoted by him 30 cannot be traced as belonging to Īśvarakrsņa.

Chinese Account about Vindhavāsa Larson and Bhattacharya offer a new interpretation of the Chinese evidence to determine the comparative sequence of Vārsaganya, Vindhyavasin; Vasubandhu and Isvarakrsna and suggest their chronology. This has led:them to conclude meaningful changes in the history of Sämkhya and the specific role of these philosophers. Out of the two atcounts by Paramartha and Kue-chi they consider the one of Paramartha to he more reasonable and reliable. According to them, Varsaganya was an earlier teacher. Vindhyavāsin was his pupil in the sense that he belonged to the tradition of Vārşagaņya. Vindhyavāsin revised Sāmkhya in his Sāmkhyasastra. He had a debate with Buddhist philosophers who preceded Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu composed Paramārthasaptati as a rejoinder to the Samkhyasastra of Vindhyavasin. The Sāmkhyakārika is not a polemic text connected with the.debate with the Buddhists. It was an 'in-house',document whose audience was made up of followers of Samkhya. The chronological sequence

27. P. 4. 28. A History of Indian Philosoply, Voi. I, p. 218, fn. 3. 29. Tarkarahasyadıpikā, pp. 102, 104. 30. Ibid., p. 104.

348 Retrieving Samkhya History

which Larson and Bhattacharya thus reconstruct is: Varsaganya c. AD100-300 but probably earlier rather than later. Followers of Vārşaganya (vārșaganāh) c. AD 300-400, Vindhyavāsin c. AD 300- 400 and Iśvarakrsna c. AD 350-450. The baffling controversy about the history of Samkhya in 'relation to the times and contributions of Vindhyavasin has been caused by the confusing Chinese accounts. The confusion is created mostly by the Catalogue of Nanjio and the Chinese translation of Paramartha's Vasubandhucarita (Life of-Vasubandhu). In this connection the testimonies of Hsuan Tsang and his pupil Kuei-chi have not been properly analysed. . CONFUSION CREATED BY PARAMĀRTHA The prevailing confusion is the creation mostly of Paramartha's "Life of Vasubandhu". Paramartha refers to Vindhyavasa as a pupil of Vārsaganya; but, at the same time, makes him a contemporary of Vasubandhu by saying that he participated in a debate with Vasubandhu's teacher Buddhamitra. Paramārtha possibly did not possess an authentic knowledge about Vindhyavasa and his position in the history of Samkhya. He possibly laboured under theimpression that the "Gold Seventy" was the work of Isvarakrsna. Modern . scholars start with Paramärtha's testimony as their main source. They try to see reason in it and explain conflicting evidence. Paramārtha commits major mistakes on certain vital points. Earlier scholars did not reject Paramartha's testimony. Larson31 has boldly recognised the contradictions in the garbled account of Paramārtha.

KUEÌ-CHTS ACCOUNT In contrast with Paramärtha, Kuei-chi move is dependable. Kuei- chi clearly says that the "Gold'Seventy" (Hiranyasaptati) is the work of Rain-host (Varsaganya), the associates of the Samkhya teacher Ba-li-sa (Varsa).32 Evidently the treatise Hiranyasaptati is attributed by him to Varsaganas, who were the followers of a

31. Op.cit., pp. 142-4. 32. Takakasu in JRAS, op.cit., p. 49.

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 349

Samkhya teacher. Kuei-chi was possibly.misled by the form Varsagana to imagine that the founder.of the Samkhya school was Varsa, not realising that the.form Varsagana is derived from Vārșaganya, the name of the founder of the school. Here Kuei-chi does not name the follower of Varsaganya who wrote the "Gold Seventy" There is a strong possibility ofhis being Vindhyavasin. The testimony of Paramārtha about Vindhyavasa being a follower of Vārșaganya receives support from the fact that Vindhyavasin, on several important points, holds the same view as was enunciated by Vārsaganya.33 In ånother context Kuei-chi refers to a debate between a Samkhya teacher and a Buddhist: The Samkhya teacher is said to have composed, for the purposes of the debate, a treatise in seventy verses called the "Gold Seventy". The Samkhya teacher defeated the Buddhist. Later Vasubandhu composed the Paramarthasaptati as a rejoinder.34 In this account the names of the Samkhya teacher and the Buddhist are not mentioned. But, if the "Gold Seventy" of this reference is the same as the "Gold Seventy" in the other reference by Kuei-chi, the inference may be drawn that the Samkhya teacher was a Vārşagaņa or Vindhyavāsin himself. Vasubandhu is also associated with the debate. His Paramarthasaptati is mentioned as a rejoinder to the.Samkhya.principles. But, the point, which remains unanswered, is the gap separating the rejoinder from the debate: did Vasubadhu' write his treatise.immediately after the debate, or there was a long gap between the twoevents. The reference, by no means, necessitates the writing of the "Gold Seventy" to closely followed by the composition of the Paramarthasaptati.

EXPLANATION OF PARAMARTHA'S ACCOUNT Here we may again refer to Paramartha's "Life of Vasubandhu". According to Paramārtha, Värsaganya was a Sāmkhya teacher. His pupil Vindhyavasa learned Samkhya from him but re-worked the content of the system and also composed some couplets summarising the revised doctrines. Vindhyaväsa in a debate defeated the Buddhist

33 See infra under section "Vindhyavasin and Varsaganya". 34. Takakusu in BEFEO, op.cit., pp. 38-40.

350 Retrieving Samkhya History Buddhamitra, who was the teacher of Vasubandhu. Vasubandhu could not challenge Vindhyavasa in a debate, as the latter had died in the mean time. As a rejoinder to the Samkhya doctrine Vasubandhu composed the Paramarthasaptati. In Paramārtha's account Vindyavāsa is closèly connected with both Varsaganya and Vasubandhu, which causes an unbridgeable gulf. But, in both the cases the chronological connections ate not as definite as they are made out. In the account Varsaganya is mentioned as a mythological being. Some scholars, in their attempt to bring Vindhyavāsa nearer in time to Vasubandhu, say that Vindhyavasa was not the direct disciple of Varsaganya, but was a pupil in the Samkhya tradition started by him. Takakusu suggests that. the original Sanskrit name for the Chinese expression undetfreference could be either Varsagana or Varsagana. If it is Varsagana,it would mean that Paramärtha, in naming the founder of the Varsaganas imagined a Sämkhya sage of this name committing a mistake similar to that of Kuei-chi,.when he imagined Varsa as the founder of a Sāmkhya school. Ifit is.Vārsagana, then it yields a happier meaning. Vindhyavāsa, how, becomes a pupil:of Vārsagana, which means a follower of Varsaganya. The way the teacher of Vindhyavāsa is mystified suggests that Vindhyavasa lived long before Paramārtha. PARAMARTHA ON VINDHYAVĀSA'S CONTRIBUTION Paramārțha refers to. Vindhyavāsa as re-working the contents of the system received from his teacher, and as presenting the revised doctrines in some couplets. Both these statements can be supported, though not directly. The philosophical views of.Vindhyavāsin, as recorded in later texts, do not appear to be in his original words. On the basis of these references; we cannot come to any definite conclusion about the form of the treatise composed by Vindhyavāsin. It 'may, however, benoted that Gunaratnasūri, in the Saddarsana- samuccaya,35 quotes a verse of Vindhyavāsin.36 Kamalaśīla, in his

35. P. 104. 36. Vyomavaft (Chowkhamba), p. 521 also quotes the verse, but without any reference to the source.

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 351

commentary on the Tattvasamgraha,37 quotes a verse, without referring to its author, which P. Chakravarti38 takes to be a quotation from Vasubandhu's Paramarthasaptati, admitting that there is no conclusive evidence in its support: We cannot be sure, but it is possibile that the first line of this verse was borrowed from Vindhyavasin's text. Both the statements about Vindhyavasin re-working the contents of the system and presenting his exposition in verses tacitly refer to the composition of the "Gold Seventy" or the Kanakasaptati: by Vindhyaväsin. The very name of this treatise indicates that it was composed in verses. In confirmation of the other statement P. Chakravarti39 refers to a few points where Vindhyavāsin deviates from the views of his predecessors. If we ¿ take Paramārtha's account to refer to Vindhyaväsin re-working the doctrine of his own teacher and not of other predecessors, than we are confronted with the close similarity between Vidhyavāsin and Varsaganya on several points and have to seek another explanation tof the statement. We know that the earliest known exposition of 1Samkhya was in the form of the Sasthitantra.40 In the Yuktidīpika other expositions of Sāmkhya have been termed as tantrāntaras. Vindhyavāsin marked a departure from the pearlier pragtice of tantras, by presenting his views in seventy verses and started the series of saptatis, Vasubandu emulated Vindhyavāsin, but entitled his treatise as Paramärthasaptati in opposition to the Kanakasaptati of the rival Samkhya system. Isvarakrsna paid allegiance to the tradition of the sasthitantra, but presented his views in seventy verses, thus combining the features of the two important Sāmkhya streams of sasthitantras and saptatis. Paramartha was possibly so much obsessed with the general currency of the Sāmkhyakārika in saptati verses that with only a dim vision of Vindhyaväsin and the obscurity of his Kanakasaptati, overshadowed by the

37. P. 22. 38. Op. cit., p. 147. F 39. Op. cit., p. 145. 40. Scholarly opinion is devided on recognising the Tattvasamasasutra and the Samkhyasütras as early texts of Samkhya.

352 Retrieving Samkhya History Samkhyakarika, he refrained from making an unequivocal statement about Vindhyavasin composing the "Gold Seventy".

THE CATALOGUE OF NANJIO The Catalogue of Nanjió was far removed in time from the early texts of Samkhya. At that time authentic information about these texts was not available in China. The text of the Kanakasaptati and its author were not duly known. It is, therefore, quite plausible that the Samkhyakarika, a text in seventy verses, was identified with the Kanakasaptati and referred to as "Gold Seventy".

VINDHYAVASIN'S PARTICIPATION IN A DEBATE WITH A BUDDHIST G.J. Larson41 has offered a very plausible explanation to resolve the confusion about the debate between a Samkhya teacher and a Buddhist, the role played by Vindhyaväsa and Vasubandhu in it, the composition of a text named the "Gold Seventy", and its identification with the Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrsna. According to him, 'the Chinese tradition has tended to identify two separate texts or events. On the one hand, there was probably a tradition which involved a debate between a Samkhya teacher and a Buddhist, and there is no reason to doubt that the Samkhya school involved was that of the followers of Varsaganya, one of whom was a certain Vindhyavasa. At a later time this tradition became associated with the composition of the Samkhyasaptati or the Chinese version of the Samkhyakarika. The latter text was probably composed by Iśvarakrsna sometime after the reported debate, perhaps as a final summary of the Sarkhya position. This conclusion would support the Chinese tradition concerning a debate, at least in its main outline, and would eliminate the necessity of equating the Kārikā with the text or couplets used in the context of the debate.

Vindhyaväsin and Vărşaganya Takakusu, relying on the testimony of Paramartha, took 41. Op. cit., p. 144.

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 353

1 Vindhyavāsa to be a disciple of Vārsaganya. In the Chinese translation of Paramartha's account, the name of the teacher appears .ag Pi-li-cha-kia-na. In Japanese the namezhas been transliterated as Bi-ri-sha-gana. According to Takakusu, the original name.was either Vrsagaņa or Vārşagaņa. The' Chinese translation of Paramartha's commentary on the Samkhyakärika, explaining the tradition of teachers and disciples, referred to in the penultimate kārikā mentions Isvarakrsna as the disciple of Po-po-li. Takakusu took Po-po-li to stand for Varșa.42 Belvalkar43 suggested that the original .Sanskrit name of this teacher of Isvarakrsņa was Devala. U.V. Shastri44 argues, without being dogmatic, that the Chinese expression possibly stood for Kapila. P. Chakravarti,45 relying on the Japanese transliteration of the name as Bat'-ba-li, takes it to correspond to Baddhali, mentioned in the Yuktidtpika.46 Evidently this evidence does not have any bearing on the subject under discussion. On the testimony of Paramārtha a Vindhyavāsa, as a disciple of Vārșagaņya, is placed in a in a period after. Vārșagaņya. The idealogical connection between Varsaganya and Vindhyavāsin is to be accepted. Though we have only a few fragmentary references to the views of Varsaganya and Vindhyavasin, the tradition, as recorded in the Yuktidtkikā and other texts, shows that, on some important points, the two had a remarkably identical view.47 These relate to the number ofkaranas being eleven, to pratyaksa being characterised as srotrādi-urtti, and to the nature of anumana. If we accept that Vindhyavāsa was the disciple of Vārsaganya,

42. BEFEO, op.cit., p. 148, n.3. The equation is a far-fetched on Po-p'o-li = Po-so-li - Po-li-so = Va-li-so = Varșa. 43. Bhandarkar Commemoration Valume, p. 44. Op. cit., pp. 520-1. 45. Op. cit., pp. 131-2. 46. P. 175. Also mentioned in Tattvartha-RAjavdrttika, p. 51. 47 U.V. Shastri, op.cit., pp. 521-6; P. Chakravarti, op.cit., pp. 138-41.

354 Retrieving Samkhya History ( his date, as the junior contemporary of Vārșaganya, will approximate to the date of the latter. The date of Varsaganya is not precisely known, but he seems to thave been one of the early Samkhya teachers.48 This association of Vindhyavāsa with Vārsaganya is difficult to reconcile with Paramartha's account, which makes Vindhyavasa an elder contemporary of Vasubandhu, who has to be placed in the middle of the fourth century.49 To reconcile this apparent conflict, U.V. Shastri50 suggests that the reference to Vindhyavāsa as the pupil of Vārsaganya does not mean that he was a direct disciple of the latter, Varsaganya was the teacher (guru) of Vindhyavasa in the sense that Vindhyavasa belonged to the school (sampradaya) founded by Varsaganya, It seems that the Chinese tradition, ignorant about the rules governing the formation of a term to refer to the followers of Vārsaganya,61 imagined explanations based on the literal meaning of the component parts of the name Varsaganya. According to the rules ofthe Sanskrit grammar, a follower of Vārsaganya is designated as a Varsagana. Kuci-chi, the pupil of Hsuan Tsang, in his ignorance, split the appellation Varsagana into two vārsa (relating to Varșā) and gana (host). As a corollary to this, he imagined a.Samkhya philosopher with the name Varșa and applied Vārsagana to refer to ą follower of Varsa.52 Extending this explanation to the account given by Paramärtha, P. Chakravarti argues that possibly Paramartha failed to understand

48. Supra, chapter, 17. See Chakravarti, op.cit., p.'135, Belvalkar in Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, p. 177 holds that both Vindhyavāsa and Vrsa or Varsaganya followed Isvarakrsna. 49. See under section "The Date of Vindhyavasin - Contemporaniety with Vasubandhu". 50. Op. cit., pp. 515-27. 51. U.V. Shastri, op.cit., p. 522, fn. 1. See also P. Chakravarti, op. cit., pp. 156-8. 52. P. Chakravarti, op. cit., pp. 136-7, points out a similar mistake on the part of Kuei-chi explaining the word kapila to mean 'red', adding that Kapila, the propounder of Samkhya, was so called because his complexion was red.

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 355

the real meaning of the term Varsagana, which he found being applied to Vindhyavāsa. This appellation was intended to mean that Vindhyavasa was a follower of Varsaganya. Paramartha imagined a Samkhya philosopher of the name Vrsagana to explain the derivative form of the appellation current for. Vindhyayāsa. The date of Vindhyavasa, cannot be determined òn the basis of the restoration of the name Vrsagana in the account of Paramartha proposed by Takakusu, because there is no other evidence to confirm the historicity of a Samkhya philosopher names Vrsagana. Takakusu made an'alternative suggestion that the original Sanskrit form of the Chinese name of the teacher of Vindhyavasa was Vārșagaņa .. Vārșagana means a follower of Vārșagaņya. If we accept that Vindhyavāsa was a pupil of Vārsagana and not directly of Värșaganya, it steers.clear of many problems. It provides for a gap between Värşaganya and.Vindhyavāsin and also explains the similarities in the philosophical ideas of Vindhyavāsin and Vārșagaņya. Thus, we see that the date:of Vindhyavāsin is not to be bracketed with that of Varsaganya. He seems to have been separated from Vārsaganya by more than one generation.

Vindhyavāsa and.Vasubandhu. The real difficulty is created by Paramartha, when he associates Vindyavāsa with a debate with Vasubandhu's teacher Buddhamitra. It is to be noted that no Chinese account connects Vasubandhu and Vindhyavāsa directly. According to Paramärtha, Vasubandhu could not engage Vindhyavāsa in a debate, because the latter had died, and Vasubandhu had to write a rejoinder to the Sāmkhya doctrines. In the account given by Kuei-chi there is no reference to a debate between the author of the "Gold Seventy" and Vasubandhu. The latter is simply said to have composed his Paramarthasaptati later as a rejoinder to the Samkhya doctrines. It appears that there was a chronological gap between Vindhyavasa and Vasubandhu, so that the two could not meet personally. The fact that Vasubandhu composed his treatise as a rejoinder would indicate merely that he belonged to a later date. 1

356 Retrieving Samkhya History VINDHYAVĀSA'S BUDDHIST ADVERSARY It, is only Paramartha' who names the Buddhist adversary of Vindhyavāsa as Buddhamitra 'and refer to him as the teacher of Vasubandhu. But, the name of Buddhamitra as, Vasubandhu's teacher is not confirmed by any independent source. According to Hsuan Tsang, Manoratha was the teacher of Vasubadhu. Kuei-chi does not mention the name of Vasubandhu's teacher, because there was no need for him to do so. Manoratha, as a vehement critic of Samkhya principles, is khown from the Yuktidipika. The Yuktidīpikā, is establishing the validity of the Sāmkhya principles, first presents faithfully the views and arguments of the opponents of the Samkhya. After criticising, the opponent's wrong view .of bondage in two couplets, it expounds the Samkhya view and ir the concluding remark, says that by this the intention of Manoratha will be frustrated.53 This exposes 'the mistake in Paramartha's statement that Vindhyavasa engaged in a debate with Vasubandhu's teacher named Buddhamitra. Excepting this allusion to Manoratha as a criticof the Samkhya system, the Yuktidipikā does. not name any other anti-Sāmkhya Buddhist philosopher.P. Chakravarti,4 however, points out that at one place the Yuktidipika55 vehemently criticises the view of Vasubandhu. This has led Chakravarti56 to'take.three-couplets, occurring in the Yuktidtpika57 as a criticism of the Samkhya theory of the gunas and its view of bondage and liberation by its opponents to be quotations from the Paramarthasaptati.58 According, to him

53. Yuktidipika, p. 107 - tasmād viphalatām yātu manoratha- manorathah ! 54 Op. cit., p. 150. 55. Pp. 135-7 (notes). 56. 'Op. cit., pp. 150-3. 57. Pp. 72-107. `58. According to the Chinese tradition, Vasubandhu wrote the Pramarthasaptati as a rejoinder to the Samkhya principles. But, in the Yuktidtpikd it is Vasubandhu's teacher Manoratha who is named preeminently for his criticism of the Samkhya views. This would mean that both the teacher and the pupil wrote separate matrical treatises ->

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 357

the Yuktidipika is a rejoinder of the Paramarthasaptati. He says that the author of the Yuktidipika gives a fitting reply. to the arguments of Vasubandhu and establishes the validity of the Kārikā of Iśvarakrsņa. He argues: Had Vasubandhu actually written his Paramarthasaptati „ with a view. to refuting the treatise of Vindhyavasa, the author of the Yuktidtpika would never take so much trouble in pleading the case of Isvarakrsna. In that case, he would certainly write a commentary on the treatise of Vindhyąvāsa, instead of the Kārikā of Isvarkrsna.

TREATISES AND THE DEBATE Chakravarti bases his view on the equation of the Samkhyakārikā of Isvarakrsna with the "Gold Seventy", in opposition' to which Vasubandhu, according to Kuei-chi, wrote his Paramarthasaptati. Wehave shown59 that the Samkhyakarika cannot be identified with the "Gold Seventy", which-really stands for the Kanakasaptati. The `author of the Yuktidipikā.argues to maintain Samkhya principles against their criticism by opponents. He 'chose that Samkhyakarika, because it Was the most standard and the latest account of Samkhya. At may be pointed out that couplets or views .(which Chakravarti'attributed to the Paramarthasaptati) criticising Samkhya are confined to a few points and are not found in a sizeable number of cases (as will be expected if the Yuktidipika had been a 'rejoinder of the Paramarthasaptati): We find that the author of the Yuktidipikā on a given. principle discusses various points of view, including those of other Sāmkhyā schools. criticising Sämkhya principles. Explaining it, Chakravarti, op. cit., p.'152 says that 'the teacher himself did not write any such treatise, and it was Vasubandhu who in his Paramartha-Saptati tried to restore the fame of his teacher, and in doing so it would be natural on the part of the pupil to ascribe sometimes eyen his arguments to his teacher Manoratha and thus to make the position of the teacher more safe which made Manoratha the target of attack by the, author of the Yuktidtpikā. 59. Seeinfra, under section "The Date of Vindhyavasin - Vindhyavasin and Isvarakrsna -Sāmkhyakārikā as Kanakasaptati".

358 1 Retrieving Sämkhya History The sequence of the composition of the relevant texts, according to Chakravarti,.will be the Samkhyakarika (or "Gold Seventy"), then its criticism by Vasubandhu in the Paramarthasdptati, and finally the Yuktidipika as a rejoinder to the Paramarthasaptati. The "Gold Seventy", however, is not the Samkhyakarika, but is an earlier work named the Kanakasaptati, possibly written by Vindhyavasin. Now, therè can be two possible sequences of the relevant texts depending on the relative chronology, which we accept for Vasuhandhu and Isvaraksna. If Vasubandhu was earlier, then we have to postulate that, sometime after the composition of the Kanakasaptati by Vindhyavasin of the Varsagana school of Samkhya, the Buddhist stand was vindicated by Vasubandhu in his Paramarthasaptati. He was followed by Iśvarakrsna, who tried to måintain the principles of the Sasthitantra, but presented them in the form. of a Saptati. Isvarakrsna, in his presentation, deliberately eschewed all criticism and arguments. This laçuna in the Samkhya account was filled up by the author of the Yuktidtpika; who gave arguments in support of the Sämkhya, principles, rebutting the criticism of the opponents. If, however, we take Isyarakrsna to have preceded Vasubandhu, the position will be slightly changed. After Vindhyaväsin formulated in the Kanakasaptati, his yiews; different on certain points from-the mainstream of the Sämkhya, Isvarakrsna thought it prudent to re- establish-the original-tradition, associated with the Sasthitantra, but chose to do so only in seventy verses, as was done in the Kanakasaptati. Following the fashion of the saptatis in the Samkhya cireles, Vasubandhu presented the; Buddhist point of view rin his Parąmarthasaptati. The Yuktidīpika took up the task to demonstrate the rationality on the Samkhya principles. We.cannot-show our preference for either of the two possibilities, because, though wehave, besides the testimony of Paramartha, other independent indications for the date of Vasubandhu, the only limit in the case of Isvarakrsna is provided by the fact that Parmartha's commentary on his Sāmkhyakārikā was translåted in Chinese between AD 557 and 569. ASSOCIATING VINDHYAVASA WITH VASUBANDHU The intriguing question remains: why should Paramartha bracket

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 359

Vindhyavāsa with Vasubandhu in a debate. Larson has explained the conflicting account,by saying that here two separate ,events have been mixed up. Vindhyavāsa was engaged in a debate with a Buddhist: in earlier times. His name was dragged- down by Paramärtha to the debate in the times of Vasubandhu. We know that the Buddhist philosophers, for several centuries, had engaged in philosophical discussions, with teachers of Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaiseșika systems, which added to the richness and logical ordering of philosophical ideas. It is not unlikely that the accounts, in some cases, confused the names, of the actual, participants. When Paramārtha associated Vindhyavasa with the debate in the times of Vasubandhu, there was possibly a basis for such a confusion to be created. Chakravarti60 points out that the Buddhist tradition refers to an earlier, Vasubandhu. Yasomitra mentions the view of a Vasubandhu named as.Sthavira Vasubandhu and Vrddhacārya Vasubandhu.61 Possibly, he belonged to the times of Vindhyavāsin and was the pupil of Buddhamitra. Paramartha could have been led by the contemporaneity of this Vasubandhu with Vindhyavasin to associate Vindhyavasa with the debate in the times of Vasubandhu, the famous Buddhist scholar.

The Date of Vindhyaväsin

The date of Vindhyavasin is a very vexed problem: It is fixed on the basis of three arguments: his contemporaneity.with.Vasubandhu, the later texts; referiing to him and his views; and, his relative position vis-a=vis Iśvarakṛsņa.

CONTEMPORANEITY-WITH VASUBANDHU

According to the Chinese version ofParamartha's Vasubandhucarita ("Life of Vasubandhu"), Vindhyavasa defeated the Buddhist scholar Buddhamitra in a debate and, 'when Vasubandhu wanted to challenge Vindhyavasa in a debate, he found that Vindhyavāsa was

60. Op. cit., p. 153. 61. sphutārthábhidharmąkośavyđkhyd (Tokyo), p. 280, lines 6-7, p. 35, line 20.

360 Retrieving Samkhya History dead.62 This would indicate that Vindhyavasa was a senior contemporary of Vasubandhu. The date of Vasubandhu will help us fix, with rough approximity the date of Vindhyavasa. But, unfortunately Vasubandhu cannot be precisely located. Takakusu63 placed Vasubandhu in c. AD.420-500. Accordihg to N. Péri,64 Vasubandhu is to be placed ar century earlier than this date. Takakusu's date will make Vasubandhu a contemporary of King Skandagupta (c. AD 452-480), whereas Péri's date points to Candragupta II (c. AD 380-415). Both these kings are known to have assumed the title of Vikramāditya. But, according to Paramartha, Vikramāditya's crown prince was Bālāditya, who later patronised Buddhism. It may be noted that in either case the Gupta king is not known to have Baladitya as his crown prince. The only Gupta king designated as Balāditya is Narasimhagupta, the son, of Purugupta and the grandson of Kumaragupta I, but his date is generally fixed around AD 510-530: His father Purugupta is not known to have assumed the biruda of Vikramaditya and his date will be rather late for other considerations.65,The earliest date for Vasubandhu, as suggested ViA: Smith;6s is AD 280-360: The date of Vindhyavasa is taken to be a generation or two earlier than the date ofVasubandhu, but we do not know of a Vikramaditya and his son Baladitya in this time-bracket to suit the requirements of the case. The Indian tradition also offers a clue to the date of Vasubandhu Vāmaná, in his Kāvyālamkarasūtravrtti, 67 quotes the second half of a verse saying that 'this very son of Candragupta, young and shining like the Moon (Candraprakāsa), a patron of men of letters, fortunately successful in his efforts, has now become king'. Vamana, in his comments, says that here the expression asrayah krtadhiyām 62., Takakusu, in,BEFEO, op. cit., pp. 47-50. 63. Takakusu in JARAS, op. cit., p. 53. 64: BEFEO, XI, pp. 356ff. 65. A.S. Altekar's suggestion, based on numismatic evidence, of two Narasimhaguptà Baladityas, the first being earlier in date, is not 1 supported by other independent evidence. 66. The Early History of India, Appendix IV. 67. III.2.2, p. 86.

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 361 (a patron of men ofletters) refers to the ministership of Vasubandhu (Vasubandhu-sācivyopaksepaparatvāt), This would make Vasubandhu a contemporary of the son of king Candragupta and Vindhyavasa a contemporary of Candragupta himself. In the Gupta fimily there are two kings with the name of Candragupta:68 Candragupta I, who is glorified as the founder of the Gupta Empire, and Candragupta II, the most renowned king of the Gupta dynasty, who is known by his title of,Vikramaditya. P. Chakravarti favours the claim of Candragupta II to be the Candragupta under reference. His argument is that in Pramartha's account, Vikramāditya is said to have given at Aydhya three lakhs of gold to Vindhyavasa for defeating Buddhamitra in a debate, which suits his identification with king Candragupta II Vikramāditya. But, the details about the son of Candragupta, as recorded in the verse quoted by Vāmana, suit Samudragupta (the son of Candfagupta I) and not Kumāragupta I (the son of Candragupta II). We know from his Allahabad Pillar Inscription that Samudragupta had'to assert himself against the other claimants to the throne and that he was a patron of men of 'letters/It is difficult to choosebetween the two alternatives for the identification of Candraguptra. In either case Vindhyavāsapa generation'earlier than Vasubandhu, will. be placed in'the fourth century AD, there being a difference of some seventy or éighty years between the two possibilities. Vasubandhu occupies a high position in the history of Buddhism. Originally a Sarvastivādin, he accepted Yogacara under the influence of his elder brother, He wrote several authoritative books. He was an expert of logic and ;wrote books (Vadahrdaya, Vadavidhi and Vadavidhana) with vada (science of disputation) as part of their name. As the ahbot of Nalanda he had a long and distinguished career, and had a large company of disciples who, became very famous. Dinnaga, the great logician, was.one of them. Thus, a date in the middle of the fourth century seems to be reasonable for him. Vindhyavasa may, thus, belong to the rclose' of the third and first half of the dourth century AD. e 68. Some modern historians interpret the numismatic evidence to suggest a third Candragupta. Even if we accept the theory he will belong to the period of the decline of the Guptas, which will not suit the reference to the achievements of his son, including his patronage of men of letters.

362 Retrieving Samkhya History But we have shown" that Vindhyavasin did not engage in a debate with Vasubandhu's teacher, was much earlier than Vasubandhu and possibly was involved in an earlier debate with another Buddhist, Parmartha's account can be construed to prove that Vindhyavasin was not later than Vasubandhu. INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE The treatise of Vindhyavasin in its full form is not available, hence no argument for his date can be built on the basis of the internal evidence of his work. The external evidence of references to Vindhyavasin or his views in later works helps us bring down the limit for his date. The Chinese tradition referring to Vindyavasa does indicate that he was later than Varsaganya, the famous Samkhya philosopher. Vindhyavasa was known as a follower of Vārşaganya.70 He was not a direct disciple of Varsaganya, but possibly was not much removed from him. Varsaganya was an early Samkhya teacher, but his precise date is not known. Vindhyavasa is mentioned by Pramartha. Parmartha translated the Samkhyakarika between AD 557 and 569. If we postulate a gap ofatleast 100-150 years to account for thetype offanciful statements made by Paramartha about Vindhyavasa, we cannot place him later than the fifth century AD. We have listed below the references to the views of Vindhyavasin occurring in later works. Of these the Yuktidtpika, a commentary on the Samkhyakarika, and the Ślokavarttika of Kumārila are the earliest. The uncertainty about the date of the composition of the Samkhyakarika and the chronological order of the different commentaries on it creates difficulties for attempts at fixing the date of the Yuktidipika. According to Larson," it was written 'some- time during or prior to the eighth century AD'. Estter A. Solomon,7 69 See supra under section "Vindhyavasa and Vasubandhu - Vindhyavasa's Buddhist Adversary" 70 See supra under sectian "Vindhyavasin and Varsaganya" 71. Op. cit., p. 280, 72. The Commentaries of the Samkhyakarika - A Study, Ahmedabad, 1974

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 363 who has made a comparative study of the various commentaries on the Samkhyakarika places the Yuktidtpika in the fifth century AD. Kumārila was a senior contemporary of Sankara, the great Advaita philosopher. Kumarila is generally placed in the seventh century. These indications provide a lower limit to the date of Vindhyavasin. When the Yuktidtpika commentary refers to the views of Vindyaväsin, it implies that he was a Samkhya authority of considerable respectability. This line of evidence would not favour for Vindhyavasin any date later than the third century AD. VINDHYAVĀSIN AND ISVARAKRSNA The date of Vindhyavāsin is sometimes determined in relation to that of Isvarakrsna. In this connection scholars have considered all the three possibilities: Vindhyavasin is identified with Isvarakrsna, is said to have preceded Isvarakrsna, or else is taken to have followed him. Takakusu, on the basis of his theory of the indentification of Vindhyavåsa around AD 450.73 But, as we have seen74 the theory of the identification of the two cannot be accepted. Vindhyaväsa after Iśvarakrsna Belvalkar75 had placed both Varsaganya and Vindhyavasa after Isvarakrana. He suggests that Vindhyavasa possibly composed the Hiranyasaptati as a commentary on the Karikas of Isvarakrsna. This view is too speculative to deserve much serious consideration: It is based on a conjectural explanation to find a way out of the apparently conflicting statements in the Chinese sources. U.V. Shastri7 also places Isvarakrena before Vindhyavāsa. His view is not based on any independent consideration of the principles JRAS, op. cit., p. 53, 74 See supra under section "Name-Identification of Vindhyavasa with Isvarakrşna" 75 Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, p. 177. 76 Op. cit .. pp. 530-3

364 Retrieving Samkhya History expounded by the two or any textual reference to their comparative chronological position. He argues by accepting the date c. AD 250 for Vindhyavāsa," as proposed by Belvalkar. He places Isvarakrșna several centuries before this on three main arguments (a) İsvarakrşna's Sāmkhyakarika is referred to as the Kanagasattari in the Jain text Anuyogadvarasutra, generally dated towards the close of the first century of Christian era, (b) the Matharaurtti a commentary on the Kārika, is earlier than Vindhyavasa, and (c) Isvarakrsna is earlier than the first Sankaracarya whose date is 509 BC. We would not enter into any long discussion about the date of Isvarakrsna, but will certainly point out the major flows in the arguments advanced to indicate an early date for Isvarakrsna. Samkhyakārika as Kanakasaptati The first argument for placing Isvarakrsna earlier is based on the identification of his Samkhyakarika with "Gold Seventy" (Hiranyasaptati) of the Chinese sources and also with Kanagasattart, mentioned in the Jain text Anuyogadvarasūtra. As a first step in the chain of this argument, the Samkhyakarika is also designated as the Samkhyasaptati, because there are seventy verses in it. In the second step, the Samkhyakarika or the Samkhyasaptati is designated as Hiranyasaptati ("Gold Seventy"). And, finally, the Hiranyasaptati is identified with the Kanagasattarl of the Anuyogadvārasūtra.7 In the Indian tradition the Karikas are emphasised in the title of the treatise composed by Isvarakrsna. Though the text contains seventy (saptati) verses, this aspect has seldom been underlined. In 77. Shastri, op.cit., pp. 640-1 places Vindhyavasin in the sixth century Bc. calculating on the basis of the date 509 ac for the birth of Sankaracarya 78. P.Chakravati, op.cit., p. 148 independently suggests the identification of the "Gold Seventy" with Samkhyasapatati (- Samkhyakarika) or Kanagasattari (-Kanakasaptat), See also A.B. Dhruva, in Proceedings and Transactions of the First Oriental Conference, Poona, Vol. 2, p.270 Gopinath Kaviraj, Introduction, p. 7 (H. Sharma, ed., Jayamangala)

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 365 certain circles the name Samkhyasaptati could have been in circulation, but a specific reference to this is wanting. This Chinese tradition designates the treatise of Isvarakrena as Samkhyasastra and identifies the "Gold Seventy" with it, But this is done only by the Catalogue of Nanjio. It is not confirmed by earlier Chinese sources. Paramartha, in his "Life of Vasubandha" does not refer to the "Gold seventy". Hsuan Tsang also is silent about it. It is only Kuei-chi who mentions the "Gold Seventy", but he attributes it to the Varsaganas and not to Isvarakrsna. Kuei-chi refers to a fanciful story about the treatise being so named. According to him, the king rewarded the author with gold for his victory in the debate. There is no reference in any Indian text to the Samkhyakarika being designated as the Hiranyasaptati also, nor to a Samkhya text being so named on account of the gold paid to its author. The Chinese tradition has preserved a garbled and confused account of diverse pieces of information in the early history of Samkhya.79 Apparently, not convinced about the authenticity of the Chinese account naming the Samkhya text as the "Gold Seventy" and its identification with the Samkhyakarika, Belvalkar suggests that the Samkhya text under reference, came to be named as the Hiranyasaptati, because Samkhya assigns an important place to the concept of Hiranyagarbha in its scheme." Clearly, the contemplated role of Hiranyagarbha in Samkhya philosophy is not proven, and then it is not such an important principle as to impart the Samkhya text the name Hiranyasaptati. U.V.Shatri®1 suggests an alternative explanation for designating the Samkhyakarika as the "Gold Seventy". According to him, Kapila was the original 79 See P.Chakravarti, op.cit., p. 137; also p. 153; G.J. Larson, op. cit., pp. 143-4; U.V. Shastri, op. cit., pp. 512-3. 80 Belvalkar in Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, pp. 176-7, suggests that Vindhyavasin wrote the commentary Hiranyasaptati on the Samkhyakarikd of Isvarakrana, but on account of a mistake on the part of later writers the name of commentator was used in place of the author of the original text, and that of the author of original text replaced that of the commentator. The suggestion is highly conjectural. Fora a criticism See U.V. Shastri, op. cit., pp 529-30. 81. Op. cit., p. 528.

366 Retrieving Samkhya History

expounder of the Samkhya system which Isvarakrsna presented in the Samkhyakārika. Kapila literally means the golden colour, hence, in deferance to the founder of the Samkhya system, the Sāmkhyakarika came to be named as the Hiranyasaptati. But, the explanation is fanciful and far-fetched; it does not explain,why, of all the various texts, not authored by Kapila but by other Samķhya teachers, the Samkhyakarika alone should retain a reference to the name of Kapila. Then, it is difficult to understand why, in place of a direct reference to Kapila, an indirect allusion to him, through one of the meanings of his name, should be made. M In Kuei-chi's account the "Gold Seventy" is associated with a dbate between a Samkhya teacher and a Buddhist. G.J. Larson82 correctly observes. It is quite difficult to believe that Samkhyakārika was written for purposes of a debate. It is not a polemical text. Indeed, in Karika LXXII it is expressly set forth that the text is a simple summary of doctrine without illustrative stories or arguments against opponents. = Thus, there is no valid ground for indentifying the Samkhyakārika with the "Gold Seventy" (Hiranyasaptati). Hence there will be no justification for the final istep 'of indentifying it with the Kanagasattari. mentioned in the Anuyogadvarasūtra and then inferring the date of Isvarakrsna.

Kanagasattarī The Anuyogadvarasutra' lists a number of ignorant, false and irresponsible philosophies and texts. It mentions. Kanagasattari along with Kavilam, Logayatan, Satthiyantam and Matharapurāna- vāgaraņanādagāi. Before Kanagasattarī, we have the names of Bhāraham, Rāmāyaņam; "Bhīmasurukham, Kodillayam' and Ghodayamuham. The list does not refer to Jain texts and systems. Wehavethe names of Bhārata, Rāmāyana, Kauțilyam (Kodillayam) Vaiseşika (Vaįseşiyam) and Buddhism (Buddhasāsaņam). The

82. Op. cit., p. 144. He claims that this point 'no one sems to have noticed'.

Vindhyavasin'and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 367

order of enumeration does not show any arrangement or proper grouping. Mathara, if standing for a Samkhya teacher, is inconveniently placed as part of a compound along-with Purāņavāgarananādagāï. Likewise, the presence of Logāyatam in between .Kavilam and Satthiyantam is difficult -to explain otherwise.8s The insertion of Besiyam, Vaisesiyam, and Buddhasāsanam between Kanagasattari and Kavilat shows that the order of enumeration is totally haphazard. Kanagasattari does not go directly with the Samkhya Kavilam and Satthiyantam. It is more closely associated with Ghodayamuham, Vesiya, Vaisesiya and Buddhasasana. Either the Kanagasattari was connected with an independent philosophical system, or else it belonged to a school of Samkhya, different from the main school of Kapila and the Sasthitantra, As Isvarakrsna emphatically proclaims his idealogical allegiance to Kapila, Asuri and Pancasikha, who most likely authored the Sasthitantra, the Kanagasattarl which precedes Kavila and Safthiyanta, cannot be the Sāmkhyakārikā of Isvarakrsna. Isvarakrsna after Vindhyavāsin Shastri84 argues that the vehemence, with which Vindhyavasin rejects the concept of a subtle intermediate body, shows that he came after Isvarakrsna, who propounds it. But, the argument is presumptuous. We do not have the original text written by Vindhyavāsin: Later texts merely refer to his view against the concept of a subtle intèrmediate body. We have here two views on the subject. There is no reason to believe that Isvarakrsna was the only, Samkhya philosopher to, subscribe to the concept of the intermediate body. We do not have evidence for. making any positive assertion about the relative chronology of Vindhyavāsin and Isvarakrsna .. Interestingly, B. Bhattacharya,85 on this very

83. Lokāyata, literally meaning, current among the people', may appear to be qualifying the following name Satthiyanta. But, here we have an 'enumeratidh of independent names; there is no reason why the term may not be taken to refer to the Lokayata school of philosophy. 84 Op. cit., p. 640. 85 Journal of Indian History, Vol. VI, p. 36.

TW

368 Retrieving Samkhya History

evidence, argues that Isvarakrsņ'a devotes.three kārikās (39-41) to a refutation of Vindhyavasin's view's on subtle body. U.V. Shastri,86 points out that not three karikas, but only karika 40 concerns subtle body and this cannot, in any way, be cohstrued.to indicate that Isvarakrşna wrote this kārikd as a_rebuttal of Vindhyavāsin. Actually; a comparison of the views of the two Samkhya philosophers does not yield any tangible evidence for their relative chronological position. A.P. Mishra87 subscribes to the view that Vindhyavasa followed Isvarakrsna. He does not advance any argument to support his view, but criticises the arguments advanced for placing Vindhyavāsa before Isvarakrsna. For pūrva-paksa he mentions three arguments. The first is based on Paramartha's account about Vastibandhu. No doubt the account does not make a specific mention of Isvarakrsna and considering the vagueness and contradictions' involved, it cannot be used for a definite assertion about the relative chronological position of Vindhyavāsa and Isvarakrsna. The'second argument, based on the equation of Vindhyavāsin with. Vyādi, is equally untenable, because Vindhyaväsin was not another name of Vyādi; the latter came to be designated as a vindhyavāsin on account of his abode in the Vindhyas. A.P. Mishra admits the force of the third argument. The author of the Yuktidipikd argues that the jijnasd and other members of the syllogistic reasoning are not expounded by Isvaraksna because Vindhyavasin and other teachers Have expounded thenf in their treatises 'and they are respected as authoritative by Samkhya philosophers. But, to maintain his view of Isvarakrsna being earlier, Mishra tries to explain away this argument. He says that the author of the Yuktidipika advances two arguments to explain the absence of ah account of jijnasa and other members in the Samkhyakārikā. First, jijñāsā and others are parts of anamāna. Isvarakrsna, has discussed pramana. Jijnasa and others are inherently implied in it, hence they have not been separately

86. Op. cit., pp. 530-1. 87. Op. cit., pp. 171-3.

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 369 discussed. Mishra argues that this is the main argument and the second argumént, based on their exposition in the treatises of Vindhyavasin and others, is,secondary. In the face of the main argument the secondary argument is not to be given importance. Mishra has not recognised the fact that the two arguments are separate and independent. One does not replace or oust the other. The merit and historical value of the two are to be considered separately. The second argument.does not leaverany scope for doubting the earlier chronological position of Vindhyavāsin. Actually, the way the author of the Yuktidipika refers to the views of earlier scholars to supplement the treatment in the Sāmkhyakārika leads to the clear inference that Vindhyaväsin and other teachers, whose views he mentions, were earlier than Isvarakrsna. P. Chakravatif8 gives another argument .to prove that Vindhyavasin was a predecessor of Isvarakrsna. He points out that in the Jain text Pramanamtmamsa89 perception is defined as śrotrādivrttiravikalpika by the early Samkhya teachers, whereas Isvarakrsņa defines it as prativișayādhyavasāya drstam. We know that the first definition, was expounded by Vindhyavasin. This shows that, as compared with Isvarakrsna, Vindhyavāsin was considered to be an early Samkhya teacher and hence was certainly earlier than Isvarakrsna.

Conclusion Thus, we see that .Vindhyavasin,preceded Paramärtha and the author of the Yuktidipiku by several centuries. He was definitely earlier than Isvarakrsna and Vasubandhu.But, we cannot be sure about the time-gap separating him from these two. It is quite likely that he was earlier than the Anuyogadvarasūtra. We can postulate a span of at least hundred years for his reputation to settle down, for being recognised as one of the three main Samkhya authorities, along with Kapila and the Sasthitantra. He followed Varsaganya on many points. Possibly he belonged to Samkhya school founded 88. Op. cit., p. 149. 89. P. 39.

370 Retrieving Samkhya History by Vārsaganya. He could/have 'been an immediate disciple of Varsaganya, but, in any case, was not far removed from him. Taking into consideration all these facts, it can be suggested that Vindhyavasin flourished in a period when Samkhya principles were being'actively debated and discussed. The standardisation, which is designated as the Classical Samkhya, had not settled down. Thus, for Vindhyaväsin a date towards the beginning of the second century Bc will meet the requirements of the case. Vindhyavāsin'Philosophical Views An analysis of the passages in later texts30 referring to the views of Vindhyavasin helps us get an idea of some of his distinguishing principles.91 This account will, by no mean's, be exhaustive, but can project his main contributions as recognised by later writers. The most significant point expounded thus was about the antarabhavadeha or the subtle intermediate body. Kumarila, in his Ślokavaritika,92 in a verse says that Vindhyavasin has rejected the conept of the subtle intermediate body, there being n e no reason in favotir ofits existence. This is confirmed by Medhatithi,93 who says that Vindhyavåsin and other Samkhya teachers do not subscribe to the intermediate existence. He does not quote the actual view of Vindhyaväsin. He says that some believe that there is a subtle intermediate body, which passes on to the other birth, whereas others do not uphold it. He quotes a couplet of Vyāsa (addressed to a king)to.the effect that after the destruction of the body the organs enter another body, hence there is no intermediate existence of a subtle. body betweenitwo'manifest bodies. After this.there is a reference to Vindhyavāsin and other Sāmkhya teachers also rejecting . Collected by U.V. Shastri, op. cit., pp. 638-40. There are 20 passages. .A.P. Mishra, op. cit., pp. 174-6 lists 19 omitțing No. 1 in Shastri's list. 91. See-A.P. Mishra, op. cit., pp, 176-8; P. Chakravarti, op. cit., p. Ï41. 92. Stra 5, verse 62 antarabhavadehastu nisiddha vindhyavåsinā I tadestitve pramānam hi kiñcidavagamyate 11 93 On Manu, I.55.

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 371

the intermediate existence. The Yuktidipikā presents Vindhyavasin's point of view, possibly in its own words and not those of Vindhyavasin.94 It says that the sense-organs are ubiquitous, hence there-is no special case for their movement: from one embodiment to another. Fresh birth only means the manifestation of the sense-organs in the shape ofthe parental seed; the withdrawal of this manifestation results in death. Thus, there is no case for the existence of a subtle intermediate body. Here we may refer to arminor detail which has not been mentioned in the passages collected by Shastri and Mishra. Sankara in his Prapancasaratantra,95 refers to several views about the process of the desçent of purusa into the womb. One of the view says that this is due to the all-pervasiveness of the individual soul (kșetrajña). Padmapāda, in his, commentary, adds that this is the point of view of Vindhyavāsin./6 A'second set of distinctive views of Vindhyavasin relate to the concept of enjoyment or experience (bhoga) on the part of purusa. Gunaratnasuri, in 'his 'commentary on' Haribhadrasuri's Saddarsanasamuccaya,97 quotes a couplet of Vindhyavāsin 'expounding the'concept of bhoga. It says that purusa makes the mind (mands)'as if conscious by virtue of its' proximity to him, without himself undergoing any modification, just as a red java flower makes'the crystal look as if red by virtue of its proximity to it. This very concept is noted by the Yuktidipika.s8 It says that, whereas other teachers maintain that everything is experienced in

94 P. 144, lines 20-22-vindhyavdsinastu vibhutvādindriyānam btjadese urttyā janma i tattyāgo maraņam 11 tasmānnāsti sūkşmaśariram i . tasmannirviseşah I samsāra iti pakşah !1 95 kecidasya param dhāmno uyāptimeva pracakșate 1 - I. 94-7 96 vindhyavāst tvevam bhogamācaste 1 "puruşo'vivrtātmaiva svanirbhasamacetanam ! manah karoti sannidhyādupādhih sphatikamyathā", iti 11 - p. 104. See Vyomavati, pp. 521-2, for its explanation. 97. P. 108, line 12 - tatha'nyeşam mahati sarvårthopalabdhih manasi vindhyavāsinah 1 98. param dhāmno vyāptimiti vindhyavāsipakşah i

372 Retrieving Samkhya History the mahat (buddhi), in the opinion of Vindhyavasin they are experienced in the mind (manas). This concept is also expressed in a slightly different manner in another fragmentary passage attributed to Vindhyavasin by Bhoja in his commentary on the Yogasūtra.9 This cryptic allusion is to be explained to mean that it is the bddhi (sattva) which is afflicted by rajas, but the purusa also appears to be afflicted inasmuch as he is reflected in the buddhi. On the subject of bhoga the Śastravarttasamuccaya- syādvādakalpalata, 100 a commentary on the Šástravārttāsamuccaya, attributes a view which is different from the principle expounded above. The Sāstravārttāsamuccaya (III.27) in a couplet, says the bhoga on the part of the purusa is not the bhoga by the body, as expounded by earlièr scholars (pürvasūris) it arises by reflection, as in the case of a mitror. The commentary adds that here pūrvasūris refers to Vindhyavasin and others. Clearly here the original view of Vindhyavagin has not been detailed, The commentary adds that the view laid down in the. yerse was upheld by many earlier 'schglars, including Vindhyayasin. As we have seen, Vindhyavāșin does not take this stand. He does not emply the analogy of reflection in the minor. He mentions the analogy, of the crystal, which, on account of the proximity of a red java flower, appears to be red. The concept of bhoga in terms of pratibimbodaya is attaributed to Asuri and not to Vindhyavasin. Gunaratnasuri, in his commentary on the Saddarsanasamuccaya,10 quoțes a verse of Asuri. The verșe.says that the buddhi also assumes the form of the sense-organs, as they are modified into the shape of their respective objects on coming in contact with them; there arises a flow of sattva in the buddhi which becomes transparent like the self-luminous purusa, and then the 99. IV.22 - anenaivabhiprayeņa vindhyavasinoktam I "satyatapyatvameva puruşatapyatvam"-iti 11 100. . On III.27,p. 109, line 8-' - dehabhogena naivāsya bhđvato bhoga işyate pratibimbodayāt kintu yathoktam parvasuribhih 11 pürvasusibhih vindhyavāsyadibhih ! 101. vivikte drkpariņatau buddhau bhogo'sya kathyate J pratibimbodayah svacche yatha candramaso'smbhasi l - p. 104

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 373

purusa is seen reflected in the buddhi, just as the moon is reflected in the transparent water; this is called- the bhoga of the purusa. There is an apparent difference between the two concepts of bhoga. Clearly the commentary on the Sāstravārttāsąmuccaya by mistake attributes to Vindhyavasin the meaning of bhoga which was expounded by Āsuri. Another significant deviation from other Samkhya teachers, which Vindhyavasin made, is recorded in the Yuktidipikd 10?It says that, whereas other teachers of Samkhya are of the view that samkalpa (reflection); abhimāna (self-appropriation), and adhyqvasāya (ascertainment) are distinctly separațe entities, Vindhyaväsin lays down that these are identical. Kamalaśila, in his commentary Tttvasamgrahápañjikā, 103 quotes a verse of an author,-opposed to the Samkhya system; who ridicules Vindhyavavāsin for his theory of causation. According to this verse, Vindhyavāşin; whose real, name was Rudrila, demonstrated his, beast-like ignorance as an inhabitant of the Vindhya mountain, when-he said that the curd-is the same as-milk and the milk is the same-as curd. We have suggested-above104 that the alternative reading .of the second line would.indicate.that in place of Rudrila the original name of the Samkhya philosopher was Vindhyavasin and that the first line of the verse in some form 'appeared in Vindhyavasin's original work, The reference shows that Vinddhyavasin had expounded the Samkhya 'theory 'of causation, according to which the cause is not materially different from the effect. Vindhyavāsin makes a signifiçant departure from the stand of 102. P. 108, lines 12-13- samkalpābhimānādhyavasāyanānātvamanyeşām ekatvam vindhyavasinah I . 103. P, 22, line 26,7. yádeva dadhi tatkştrar yatkşlram taddadhtti cad 1 vadata rudtilenaivam khyapita vindhyavasita Fl 104. P. 108, lines 6-74 4 0 mahatah sadavišesah srjyante pafcatanmātranydhankāraśceti vindhyavásimatam !

374 Retrieving Samkhya History

the other Samkhya teachers in respect of the order of appearance of the evolutes. Many Sāmkhya thinkets regard thè five tanmatras (subtle elements) to have evolved from ahamkard. But; according to Vindhyavāsin, the five tanmatras and ahamkāra are non-specific the specific, charateristit of their respective properties being not manifest, and both alike come out of mahat .. This 'view of Vindhyavāsin is recorded in the Yuktidtpika.105 Vin'dhyavasin holds a distinctive view on the number of organs. Whereas Isvarakrsna later standardised the number of karanas as thirteen, earlier 'thinkers proposed differentnumbers :. In' this respect Vindhyavasin agrees with Varsaganya and names eleven karanas. Of these, five are motor organs; five sensory organs and also manas. This is recorded by the Yuktidīpika. 106, In the Samkhya system ar important place is assigned to the 'question-of-the magnitude of the sense-organs'(indriyas). Some thinkers hold that when the senlse-organs receive the particular impression of an object, they are modified into the shape of that object. Some others are of the view that the sense organs 'are of limited magnitude. As again'st these, Vindhyavasin is ofthe opinion that sense drgans ate pervasive. This Miewpoint of Vindhyavasin'is also known from the' Yuktidipika. 17. r"r - The most significant views of Vindhyayasin, as preserved by later writers, relate to the topic of theory of knowledge. The

105. P. 108, line 11 - karanamapi. .. ekadasakamiti vindhyavasti 106. P. 108, line 10- indriyāņi samskāraviseşayogat parìgrhitarūpāņiti kećit paricchinnaparimāņlnityapare vibhantti vindhyqvāsimatam !! 107. 'P. 148, lines 10-14- vindhyavāsinastu nāsti tatvasamam samsiddfikam ca 8 kim farhi? siddhirdpamedd I-tatra paramarserapi sargasangha- tavyūhottarakālameva jnānam nispadyate, yasmād garumukhā- bhipratipatteh pratipatsyata iti 1 apltyaha -"siddhat nimitam naimittikasyanuģraham kurute nāpurvamutpadauyati" iti 1 rtimittanqimittikabhavascaivamupapadyate l tatra nimittanaimittikabhavascaivamupapadyatg 1 „tatra paramarşeh petustūktah anyeşām kilistą ityayar viseșah 1 sarveşām tu tārakādyavisistam,i

Vintdhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 375

Yuktidipika108 has a long passage analysing Vindhyavasin's view about the different varieties of knowledge. Here the Yuktidipika presents Vindhyavåsin's viewpoint, but in its own words. Possibly Vindhyavasin's own. words have been freely used here, but'it is difficult to locate them.109 According to this passage, Vindhyavasin does not accept tattvasama (knowledge which appears in a tattva or evolute of the prakrti at the very moment of its manifestation) and sämsiddhika (knowledge which exists inhately in a composite body consisting of the organs and their. objects) types of-knowledge. Knowledge cannot be innate; it is to be acquired. Even in the case of Kapila, the most réveréd sage, the knowledge reveals in a subsequent period after he emerges into existence, for he is said to have received it through oral tiansmission by his teacher, and in this way knowledge will be" revealed in future.also! By this Vindhyavāsin' means that a stimulus as an efficient cause brings out an already existing object into revelation. It helps to manifest the substance existing in a latent form in the material cause, but it does not produce anything not existing before .. The connection between the stimulus or efficient cause and the substance latent in the material cause arises in this manner In the case of the revered sage Kapila there is quick transmission of knowledge, which is unparalleled, whereas in the case ofordinary beings the transmission is obstructed and is difficult. This'is the difference. In the case of knowledge acquired by reasoning (taraka) and other acquired ones, there is Ho difference of opinion. The Yuktidipika quotes a passage, defining the various sources of knowledge10 as, occurring, in other tantras (tantrāntaresu). Scholars generally interpret it as taken, from the writings of

,108. JJJ.V.Shastri, ope cit., p. 638, fn. ,1 identifies the fragment between apityaha and iti as being Vindhyavasin's own. 109. P. 4, lines 10-12- pratyaksadinyapi ca tantrantaresüpadisyante - "grotrādivrttiņ 'pratyaksam t sambandhadekdsmacchesasiddhiranumanam 1 yo yatråbhiyukta karmani cadustah sa faraptah tasyopadesah áptavacanam" iti I 110. Yuktidtpikå, p. 4"lines 7-8. For the passage see infra fn. 114.

376 ,Retrieving Samkhya History Vindhyavasin. This inference is based on the fact that the Yuktidipika, in the preceding lines, refers to: Vindhyavasin and others as expounding in the tantrantaras.111 Moreover, as we see below, there are other r'eferences to Vindhyavāsin definingpratyaksa and anumana in this manner and using similar expressions. The form of the passage shows that it is an actual quotation and not a formulation bythe author, of the Yuktidtpikd., But; it remains inexplicable why he should mention the tantrantaras as thé source and not name specifically any,one writer, or text,This is 'further intriguing when we find that he was familiar with Vindhyavasin and his views. A'possible explanation can be that these definitions of the sources, of knowledge appeared in not only Vindhyavāsin's treatise but also in a few, other Samkhya texts and that he wanted to emphasise, points which were common to all these texts. & According to this passage, pralyaksa (perceptión)'is the functioning of the sense-organs, ear and others. Anumana is the realisation is all remaining cases on the basis of a relation perceived previously. One is authority (apta) for that sphere with which he is specially associated and is without blemish in his action. His injunictions are known as authoritative statements (apta-vacana). Ļater texts attribute to Vindyavāsin statements about pratyaksa and anumana which are in consonance with the,definitions laid down. in the Yuktidipika. Thus, Ahhayadevasuri, in his commentary1i2 on Siddhasanadivākara's Sanmatitarka, quotes the definition of pratyaksa as given by Vindhyavāsin. Here also pratyaksa is described as the functioning of the sense-organs, but it is further elaborated by saying that this functioning, is indetefminate (avikalpika). Thus, 'according to Vindhyavasin, pratyaksa, in terms of modern psychology, will be termed as indeterminate perception, wherein thereis amere awaren'ess of the

111.53P.533, liné 27 1a śrotradiurttiravikalpįka iti vindhyąuāsipratykşalakşanam 11 A 112A P. 423, line 22- t: etacca yathoktam -- pratyakşadrstasambandhamanumānam viseșato drstamanumdnanityevam vindhyavāsina gaditam 11

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 377

tobject perceived, without determining its attributes or specific nature. Whether the expression avikalpika was dropped deliberately in the Yuktidipika is not known. But, if it was so, the author possibly wanted to emphasise the point.which Vindhyavāsin had common with other philosophers of the Varsagana school, to which he belonged. Likewise, in the case of anumāna Kamalaśīla, in his Tattvasamgrahapañjika,113 quotes the definition as pronounced by Vindhyavāsin. Here also the definition found in the Yuktidīpik is retained, but with a point of elaboration. In this passage it is stated that anumana is based on. the actual perception of connection; anumana is that which is based on the observation of the specific (viseşałodrstam). In line with this is a verse in which Kumarila114 describes pramāņatā or validity of knowledge as laid down by Vindhyavāsin. It arises out of the awareness of an object whosè existence is being suspected (sandihyamanasadbhāvavastubodhāt) and is based on the observation of the specific (visesa-drstam). From the Yuktidlpika'15 we get an indirect reference to an important part of the contents of Vindhyavāsin's treatise: It says that Isvarakrana is silent about the ten mèmbers in a purely syllogistic reasoning, because Vindhyavasin and other'teachers, who are accepted as authoritative, had expotinded jijñsā (desire to khow) and other syllogistic members in their respective treatises. Clearly the account of these syllogistic members given by

113. Ślokavārtika, p. 393, verse 143 .- sandihyamānasadbhávavastubodhāt pramāņatā l viseşadrstametacca likhitam vindhyavāsinā 11 114. P. 4, lines 7-8 - kifica tantrāntarokteh tantrāntareșu hi vindhyavāsiprabhrti- bhirdcaryairupadiştāh pramāņam taste prācāryā ityataścānupadeso jijfidsadinām 1I 115. P. 76 lines 14-15 - nahi vah sāmānyam dravyādarthāntarabhatamasti sārūpyamātre sämänyaparikalpanāt I

378 Retrieving Samkhya History

Vindhyaväsin was considered to be authoritative in Samkhya circles. These ten members are (1) jijnasa (desire to know), (2) samsaya (doubt), (3)prayojana (purpose), (4)sakyaprápti (possibility of a solution), (5) samsayavyudasa (dispelling of the doubt), (6) pratijña (proposition), (7) hetu (reason), (8) drstanta (exemplification), (9)upasamhara (application), and (10)nigamana (conclusion). The concept of samanya is an important principle in Samkhya. In the Yuktidtpika16 it is interpreted to mean the similar or common characteristic of the individuals belonging to the same class or community; it has no separate existence apart from the substance. P. Chakravarti"7 holds that this view was originally held by Vindhyavasin, Though the suggestion is quite likely, there is no positive textual reference to confirm it. The author of Yuktidipika does not say that he is quoting Vindhyavasin or referring to his views. The Sahityamimamsa1l" mentions Vindhyavasin's views of sāmānya. According to Vindhyavāsin, sâmānya is the attribute, which is inseparable from individuals known earlier and is recognisable in later individuals. Samānya is the same as sadrsya, the two words have the same meaning. Kamalasila, is his commentary Tatvasamgrahapanjika,11" says that Vindhyavasin is of the view that sarüpya means sadrsya. Vindhyavāsin has used all the three terms - samanya, sadrsya and sarupya. The central term was samanya Vindhyavasin equated it with sadrsya. In this connection he also used the term sārūpya, but took sārūpya also to mean sadrsya. Thus, he equated sarupya with samanya and explained both as meaning sadrsya.

116. Op. cit., p. 248. 117. vindhyavasinastu - pürvavyaktayavacchinnamapūrvavyaktau prattyamānam sämänyameva sādrayam | tadekatabdavācyam iti matam Il p. 43. 118. P. 636, line 7- sårüpyam sadrsyam vindhyaudsistam 1 119 Op. cit, pp. 248-50.

Vindhyavasin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 379

P. Chakravarti12 analyses Vindhyavāsin's view on sāmānya, as referred to by Kumarila in the Ślokavartika. While discussing his own view of samanya meaning universal,171 Kumārila refers to the views of teacher who takes samanya to mean pindasarūpya. Finally he mentions this teacher to be Vindhyavasin. He poses these question if samanya signifies sarüpya of pindas then what does sarüpya mean according to this teacher."2 Kumarila remarks that if the term sarapya means 'sameness of form' (samānarūpabhava), then it is the same as jati propounded by Kumārila himself, if, however, it means sdrsya (similarity), then the question arises as to 'whose', 'with whom' and 'how' this 'similarity' occurs. By way of his concluding remark, Kumarila says that Vindhyavasin in his work has used the term srūpya as meaning'sameness of form'and as an entity not absolutely different from the individuals that comprise a class. Kumarila adds that due to ignorance others call it sadrsya or similarity.13ª P. Chakravarti124 justifiably questions the faithfulness of Kumarila's account to the original view of Vindhyavāsin. Kumārila's conception of sāmānya differs from that of Vindhyavasin. Kumarila here makes an attempt to explain sārūpya 'in such a way as may be helpful to support his won doctrine of universal'. It seems that Vindhyavāsin used primarily the term sāmānya, signifying the common characteristic of individuals belonging to the same class. He explained it as implying pindasarūpya (sameness of form). He also used the word sadrsya to explain the terms

120. Akrtivāda verses 65-76. 121. Akrtivāda 65- sārüpyameva sāmānyam pindánām yena kalpyate 1 tena sarüpyasabdena km punah pratipadyate I1 122 tena natyantabhino'rthah sârūpyamiti varnitam I granthe vindhyanivasena bhranteh sddrsyamucyate H 123 Op. cit., pp. 249-50. 124 According to Paramartha, Vindhyavasa had reworkded the Samkhya system, which he had learnt from his teacher. The Tibetan sources also refer to his altering the Samkhya according to his own view. See Wassilief, Buddhismus, p. 240.

380 Retrieving Samkhya History

sāmānya and särüpya, sadrsya referring to the same characteristics of all the individuals forming a class. Thús, we see that Vindhyavasin radically differed from thé Samkhya view, which came to be standardised later by Isvarakrsna. His distinctive views relate to the principles of antarabhavadeha, the descent ofthe ksetrajña in the womb, bhoga, identify of samkalpa, abhimana and adhyavasaya, theory of causation, the order of evolutes, number of karanas, magnitude ofthe indriyas, the theory of knowledge, the nature of pratyaksa, dnumāna and apta-vaćana, ten members of syllogistic reasoning, and sāmānya' Frauwallner. attributes two major doctrinal changes to Vindhyavāsin. First, a new interpretation of the three-fold division of the antahkaranas. He replaces buddhi (the faculty of knowledge) by mahat (the great principle), It is the first general form in which the prakrti unfolds itaelf. It is mere-existence, a mark or sign and represents the first inequality in the distribution of the qualities of the prakrti through which the equilibrium in it is given up. It is neither, a psychical organism nor a product. Out of it originate the ahamkāra and the five tanmatras and the total elemental world. According to Vindhyavāsin, there are only eleven psychical organs - ten sense-organs and the manas. The manas unites in itself all functions which had been formerly attributed to the three antahkaranas. Second, the psychical organs are infinitely large. The sense-organs touch the distant objects during perception. This explains how the senses petceive objects which are larger or smaller than the physical organs. From this Vindhyavasin draws the inference that there is no subtle body which wander's in the cycle of births. In the case of rebirth the all-prevailing psychical organs cease their work in'their abode of the former body and assume it again in the abode of the new body. Frauwallner also notes that Vindhyavasin made efforts for the explanation of the idea of samanya (commonness) and sought to define it more sharply as sārūpya (similarity). Vindhyavāsin seems to have enjoyed a key position in the history of Samkhya. He belonged to the school of Värsaganya, but

Vindhyaväsin and the Emergence of Classical Samkhya 381

gave it a new exposition. There is no definite evidence about the continuation of his views in subsequent times and their impact on later thinkers. G.J.Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya say that, like Vindhyavāsin, Isvarakrsna was also a follower of the Varsaganya'school and was familiar with the views of Vindhyavasin. In presenting a standardised account of Samkhya, he dispelled the cobweb of conflicting views of earlier teachers: In his final account he did not accept some of the view of Vindhyavasin and chose to adopt another tradition. Vindhyaväsin, however, influenced the future course of philosophical development in a marked manner in another direction. P. Chakravarti and Frauwallner have pointed out close similarities in the exposition of views by Vindhyaväsin and the Yogasūtra as commented by Vyasa. Besides strikingly parallel numerous expressions in the two, Larson and Bhattacharya have emphasised three main points of contact: (a) The reduction of the functions of buddhi, ahamkara and manas to ekatva (oneness) correlates with Yoga's notion on citta, (b) The all-pervasiveness of the sense capacities eliminating the need for a subtle body is paralleled by the all-pervasiveness of citta in Yoga eliminating the need for a subtle body; (c) The interpretation of samanya and jāti as sarūpya (similarity) is common to both. From this Larson and Bhattacharya hazard the guess that Vindhyavasin's revision of Samkhya eventually became the classical Yoga philosophy of Patañjali and Vyāsa which they term as Pātañjala-Sāmkhya in contrast to Kärikā-Sāmkhya. They place Patañjali's Yogasūtra in the period c. AD 400-500. It is not the place to discuss the date of the Yogasūtra, but it appears to be considerably later. There is an inherent correlation between Samkhya and Yoga, one adopting from the other. But the spheres of the two are demarcated. In the Moksadharmaparva section, Samkhya and Yoga are often treated together, but there is no doubt about their specific areas and topics. Yoga has its own independent history of development. All this has culminated in the Classic formulation of Yoga in the Yogasutra. It does not mean that

382 Retrieving Samkhya History the possibility of influences from other traditions and consequent changes is denied .. Vyāsa pointed out parallels from the Sāmkhya stream or Vindhyavasin, but that does not amount to'admitting borrowing or influence. The Yoga tradition, barring the references in the Vyāsabhasya, does ,not assign any high position to Vindhyaväsin. By the time of Patanjali Yoga had acquired a distinct form and identity. It will be a case of over-simplification to designate the Yoga of Patañjali as Patañjala-Samkhya. It does not acquire the character of Samkhya; it remains Yoga.

19

Epilogue Systematisation and Standardisation of Sāmkhya

Introduction

THE long history of Samkhya, from its first appearance to the composition of the Samkhyakarika by Iśvarakrșna, is rich in its contents and projects interesting contours of change. It witnessed a long line of very eminent thinkers, who made significant contributions to the growth of Samkhya philosophy. They seem to have produced a voluminous literature on the subject. There was a remarkable efflorescence of Samkhya principles. The wide variety of ideas would have baffled the ordinary believer in Sāmkhya philosophy by.their conflicting statements on certain basic issues. All this must have created a need for.synthesising. the plethora of views and presenting a standardised account of the principles. Some thinkers must have realised the practical necessity for a coherent, compact and summarised account of the principles, easy to comprehend and communicate. There is evidence to indicate that this type of exercise was attempted by a number of scholars in the ancient period. Much of the voluminous Samkhya literature being not available, the details of all the landmarks in the history ofsystematisation, standardisation and summarising cannot be delineated and the thinkers, who did it, cannot be identified and described. We have some references to a

384 Retrieving Sämkhya History

few such attempts at this on-going process in Samkhya history. Even the brief references are enough to dispel the erroneous general impression that Samkhya was propounded as a set system, with fixed principles in all respects. The Samkhya is, thus, envisaged as a monolithic structure, with a unilinear development, often in the.form of elaboration and clarification of principles expounded earlier.

Standardisation by Iśvarakrşna Of the various attempts at standardisation the most outstanding was the one offered by Isvarakrsna.1 He claims to have studied all the writings of his predecessors and to have duly understood them. He says that he received the knowledge handed down through the line of teachers and taughts. He makes a pointed reference by name only to the first three Samkhya teachers, possibly to indicate his faithfulness to the original formulation of Samkhya. He is at pains to assert that he is not deviating from the sasthitantra. The sasthitantra seems to have been the earliest recorded account of Sāmkhya principles. Isvarakrsna treats it as the ancient and most respected version of Samkhya. He claims that he presents in a summarised form the principles propounded in the sasthitantra. The exercise done by Isvarakrsna was so successful that it received ready recognition. As contrasted with earlier accounts of Sāmkhya, mostly in sūtras, Iśvarakīsna chose to, present his principles in the drya metre. The ease and fluency of the metre were convenient for memorising the account. The style and choice of terms and expressions were qualities. which addeds to the merit of the Sāmkhyakārika. In presenting a'summary ofthe important principles of Samkhya. Isvarakrsna says that he has avoided the illustrative tales (akhyāyika).and controversy with opponents (paravāda). This must have weeded out long details appearing in many texts. The Sāmkhyakārika does not have the mechanical character of a summary .. It has its own positive qualities. Though he claims to present the principles of sathitantra, Isvarakrsna clearly deviates 1. See supra Chapter 1.

Epilogue 385

from its arrangement. He presents the twenty-five tattvas and the fifty pratyaya-sargas. On many issues, he seems to have taken his own personal stand. In several cases he adds some details and some arguments. The recognition accorded to the standardised account in the Samkhyakarika is evidenced by the. number of commentaries which were written on it and the .Chinese translation of the commentary of Paramartha. This version forestalled any new attempt to formulate Sāmkhya principles, Sāmkhya came to be identified with it. Modern scholars have beer'so much obsessed with it that some of them have closed their eyes to the historical realities of Sāmkhya before this formulation. They designate it as Samkhya or orthodox, pure or classical Sämkhya and refuse to accept as Sämkhya any deviation from it. The standardisation not only prevented fresh, original texts on Samkhya, other than commentaries on it, but also overshadowed earlier expositions. It is,a natural phenomenon observed in many spheres of literary writings that, a classic text eclipses earlier works to the extent that they are pushed into the background and are slowly and gradually forgotten and thus lost for ever. We find that in the history of Samkhya the earlier attempts at systematisation and standardisation did not completely drive out earlier works. It speaks of the merit of the standardisation brought about by Isvarakrsna that many ofhis predecessors were reduced to shadowy figures and their writings have survived as a few quotations retained by the commentaries.

Standardisation by Pañcasikha Isvarakrsna, though the last but the most effective systematiser of Samkhya, is important for the history of Sämkhya in recording the significance of the first attempt of this nature. He says that Pañcasikha expanded the tantra (bahudha krtam tantram). The term tantra has two distinct meanings of a doctrine and scientific treatise. Ancient commentators have interpreted the pithy remark according to the meaning assigned by them to the word tantra.

386 Retrieving Samkhya History Bahudha likewise, can he interpreted variously. It can refer to the elaboration of the doctrines, and also to its diversification, and modification. When tantra is used in the sense of a treatise, the passage signifies that Pancasikha composed a voluminous text. The reference is to be interpreted in the light the role which is assigned to Kapila and his direct disciple Asuri. Though later texts ascribe passages, texts and doctrines to Kapila and also principles and passages to Asuri, there is no undoubted evidence detailing their views and writings. Isvarakrsna makes it clear that Kapila for the first time proclaimed the Samkhya doctrine, which had remained esoteric earlier. He made an oral exposition to Asuri.2 This is confirmed by several independant sources.3 It goes to the credit of Asuri that he faithfully preserved the teachings of Kapila and communicated it to his own disciple.4 Isvarakrsna does not attribute any formal text to Kapila. He merely mentions two important points in his principles, the primacy of purusa (purusārtha) and the existence, origin and termination (sthityutpattipralaya) of all beings (bhütändm). It can be surmised that Kapila concentrated on these two aspects of his doctrine but did not elaborate them. As can be expected in such cases, the exposition was nebulous and was not spelt out with all the implications. Asuri is not known to have made any improvement in the principles or their exposition. Pancasikha for the first time recorded the teachings of Kapila and thus gave them a shape. In this process he discussed in details the various issues in the doctrine. He can be expected to have covered several aspects of the problems, and given them a full and exhaustive character. The treatise, which he composed, was an elaborate one. It seems quite likely that he expounded the principles in terms of sixty elements. Thus, sasthitantra was the name of his text and also referred to the most significant feature of his exposition. We can imagine that Pancasikha not only diversified the principles 2. Samkhyakārikā, 69-70. 3. See Bhagavatq Purdna I.3.10; (also Garuda Purdna) Mbh., XII.326- 8; Vyașa on Yogasütra I.25. 4. Mbh., XII.220.10.10;225.24. See our article on Asuri in Chinnaswami Centenary Volume (Varanasi, 1990) pp. 35-52.

Epilogue 387 and elaborated them but also prepared a voluminous text, which expounded the doctrines in terms of sixty topics. The merit of the systematisation offered by Pancasikha was duly recognised. It was accorded importance as being highlyvaluable. In the Jain tradition we find that the satthiyanta is mentioned separately along with Kavilam (=Kapilam).' It became the standard version of Samkhya. The example of Pancasikha was followed by other systems of thought. The Ahirbudhnyasamhita shows that the Pāñcarātra system also presented its principles in the form of sixty points. This text makes an interesting reference to several ways of enumerating sixty points.6 The importance of the sasthitantra in the Samkhya tradition is apparent from the fact that later thinkers were keen to proclaim their faith in the sasthitantra. Isvarakrana is not the only philosopher who did it. If the ascription of a sasthitantra to Varsaganya is correct, it would indicate that he thought it necessary to re-affirm the sasthitantra doctrine and went to the extent of preparing another text with the same title. Samgrahakāra The Jayamangala commentary on the Samkhyakarika quotes the verse enumerating the ten fundamental principles (mūlikartha) of Sämkhya, as being of the samgrahakara.7 The verse occurs in some other sources, but nowhere do we find its author being named. The name of this samgrahakara is not known from any other text. Apparently he codified the Samkhya doctrines and thus tried to introduce a system in the diffused expositions of the doctrines. It is baffling why the other texts quoting the verse have not cared to name the source, when, in many other cases, they mention the

5. Anuyogadudrasūtra, 41 - kavilam logāyatarh satțiyantam I 6. XII.29 - şaşthitantrānyathaikaikamşam nānāvidham mune ! 7. On Sämkhyakårikd, 51. 8. See our articie "Dasamulikartha in Samkhya", in Indian Historical Reuiew, Vol.

388 Retrieving Samkhya History original authority." The reference in the Jayamangala implies that the identity of the codifier was well known in the times of its author and hence he did not recognise the need for naming him. The enumeration of the ten fundamental principles is implied in the exposition of the sixty points. Hence, it is not unlikely the Pancasikha, who expounded the sixty principles, was the author of the verse in question and is to be identified with the samgrahakara But, then the question will arise why did the author of the Jayamangala commentary, though familier with the name of Pancasikha, chose not to mention him by name, but referred to him by the designation samgrahakara. It is to be noted that there is no other reference to support the use of the term samgrahakara for Pañcasikha. The verse in question is quoted by Devala in the account of Sāmkhya in his Devaladharmasūtra.1 It is, thus, clear that the samgrahakara preceded Devala. It is not unlikely that, though Pancasikha enumerated the ten basic principles, he did not use a verse for doing so. We do not have the original work written by Pancasikha, but the surviving quotations do not favour the possibility of its being in verses. Possibly, some later Samkhya scholar attempted a condensed account of the voluminous presentation of Pancasikha and he adopted verses as the medium of expression. We find the names of many Samkhya philosophers who belonged to the period after Pancasikha, but before Devala." We admit that in the present state of our knowledge we cannot identify this unnamed codifier of Samkhya.

9. Samkhyatattvakaumudt on kdrika 72 quotes it on the authority of Rajavartika, which is also a commentary. We are not sure ofthe author of the Rajavartika. Clearly Vacaspatimisra had no access to the original work of the samgrahakara and hence quotes the verse from a secondary source 10. U.V. Shastri, Samkhyadarsana ka itihasa, p. 600. 1L Matharurtti on karika 71 - Bhargava, Uluka, Valmtki and Harita

Epilogue 389

Systematisation by Devala

Devala was another Samkhya philosopher who attempted a synthesis of the circulating diversified theories and offered a compact and coherent account. His presentation appeared in the Dharmasutra which he composed. This text gave a prominent coverage to the principles of Samkhya and Yoga. These portions were of a great value for the understanding of the Samkhya principles. Sankara, in his criticism of the Samkhya, says that exposition of the system in the Devaladharmasutra and other Dharmasutras are also to be taken notice of." Though the complete text of this dharmasutra is not available,1a long passages from it have been preserved as quotations in Aparärka's commentary on the Yajnavalkyasmrti and in the Krtyakalpataru of Laksmidhara.1 Devala says that the voluminous and serious treatises, composed earlier with proper reasoning and conclusions, have been presented here in a summarised form in a purposeful manner.15 Devala helps ns in restoring several lost links in the history of Samkhya.15 Devala stands at a crucial juncture in the history of Samkhya. The earlier formulation of sasthitantra was still current, but along with it another account in terms of the tattvas had gained currency. Devala strikes a synthesis between the two. He defines Samkhya in terms of the twenty-five tattuas. But, at the same time mentions the sasthi principles. It is clear that he gives primacy to the concept of Samkhya as the knowledge of twenty-five tattuas, But, he does not mention sasthitantra. He enumerates the fifty pratyaya-bhedas and then adds the ten mulikarthas. Thus, though Devala synthesises

12 On Brahmasūtra, 1.4.28- devalaprabhrtibhisca kaisciddharmasütrakaraih svagranthe- svasritah 1 13. Our own reconstruction of the text is to be published shortly. 14. See U.V. Shastri, op, cit., pp. 600-5. 15. etau samkhyayagau cādhikrtya yairyuktitah samayataśca pârvapranitāni višalāni gambhirani tantrantha samksipyoddesato vaksyante l 16 See supra chapter 12

390 Retrieuing Sämkhya History the two traditions about the presentation of Samkhya doctrines, he shows a definite decline in the importance of the sasthitantra version. Another important aspect of standardisation and synthesis forged by Devala is about the relationship of Samkhya with Yoga. It brackets Samkhya and Yoga. It says that the highest good (nihsreyas) is two-fold and consists of Samkhya and Yoga. Devala presents a synthesis of views about God. Samkhya is often criticised as being atheistic. Some modern scholars admit that Samkhya view has changed from atheistic to theistic and then finally again to atheistic. We have demonstrated that both the theistic and atheistic points of view were present in Samkhya, and one of the two was projected depending on the context of the points being discussed. Devala synthesises the two trends by presenting them in their proper background. He describes the process of creation and evolution from prakrti, but does not provide any place to god (Isvara) in it. But, he does not hide his belief in god in other contexts. In describing the three forms of person, he mentions the devalasarira along with the manusasartra and the tiryagyonisarira. Likewise, in his account of the various systems, Devala refers to sayujya as community with the main deities whom he actually names. In his attempt at systematisation Devala adopts the effective form of sütras, in which the compact and condensed expression does not give any scope for any discussion or debate. Another characteristic of Devala's style is the enumeration of the components of any principle or element. He also explains the doctrines with the help of pithy phrases. At places, he takes recourse to the listing of various technical terms used for a concept as synonyms (anarthantara). The date of Devala cannot be fixed precisely. He was a disciple of Jaigisavya, who, in his turn, was a disciple of Pancasikha. The Buddhist tradition places him before the Buddha. We may place him roughly around 600 BC.

Epilogue 391

Mahābhārata on Systematisation

The Mahabharata also bears traces of attempts at synthesis and systematisation on one hand, and standardisation of the account on the other. The deviations from the classical Samkhya recorded in the Mahabharata have been explained variously by modern scholars, as representing an early stage in the emergence of Samkhya or as a later stage when a Vedantic colouring was applied to the Samkhya principles. It is now generally admitted that the Mahabharata preserves accounts of Samkhya in early stages of its formulation. What is generally not appreciated is that the Mahabharata is not a mere unintelligent collection of diversified and conflicting accounts of Samkhya doctrines. We find that some of the Samkhya teachers, whose views are recorded in the Mahabharata, attempted to reconcile and synthesise conflicting stands on some of the Samkhya principles. Along with this, it seems that the compilers of the Mahabharata tried to coordinate the accounts to present a standardised version.

Attempts of Yajnavalkya and Vasistha

Illustrations of attempts at synthesis are to be found in the accounts of Samkhya associated with Yajnavalkya and Vasiştha. Vasistha 17 mentions twenty-five categories and maintains that there is no tattva beyond the twenty-fifth.18 He says that Visnu is to be regarded as the twenty-fifth tattva.1" He adds that the twenty-fifth category or purusa is not a separate tattua, through delusion it embraces the tattvas and hence is regarded as a separate tattua and, though without any form, in conjunction with the prakrti, it takes the latter's attributes as its own." In XII.308 Vasistha mentions the twenty-sixth category and introduces the concepts of apratibuddha, budhyamana and the buddha. The apratibuddha is the prakrti. The budhyamana is the twenty-fifth category, the

17 Mbh., XII.302-7. 18 XII.302.47. 19 XII.302.38 20 XII.302.38-40

392 Retrieving Samkhya History .. purușa or the jiva (individual soul). The buddha is the twenty-sixth category or the liberated soul.21 The twenty-fifth category bęcomes one with the twenty-sixth, on recognising that he is not different from the latter and on not apprehending anything by his own buddhi (intelligence).22 The present account in the Mahabharata shows an attempt to reconcile the Samkhya theory of the plurality of the spirits with the doctrine of unity'.23 We also notice an attempt to fuse the Samkhya and Yoga doctrines.'Vasistha mentions the doctrines of buddha, apratibuddha and budhyamāna as characteristic of Yoga and refers to the twenty-sixth category24later he observes that the Sämkhya expounds the doctrine of the twenty- sixth category and uses the terms prabuddha and budhyamāna.25 The features characterising theSamkhya exposition by Vasistha are, also to be observed in the account associated with Yajñavalkya. Here chapters XII 310-315 deal with Samkhya and chapters XII.316- 19 with Yoga. In chapter XII.318 he.mentions the twenty-sixth category and the concepts of apratibuddha, budhyamana: and buddha. But, Yajnavalkya himself observes that the twenty-sixth category is advocated by the Samkhya and Yoga.26 The concept of the twenty- sixth category is not to be associated with the Yoga only. According to'P. Chakravarti, this doctrine was advocated by the Samkhya-Yoga school of the Epic.37 The testimony of Vasistha and Yajñavalkya is to be interpreted as showing that an attempt was made to synthesise Samkhya and Yoga, the two parallel and supplimentary systems of thought. It will be difficult to fix the date of the synthesis attempted by Vasistha and Yajnavalkya. These are the names of ancient sages,

21. XII.308.5-7. 22. XII.308.16-18. 23. -P. Chakravarti,.Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 48. 24. XII.307.48. 25. XII.308.17. 26. Mbh., XII.319.77-9. 27. Op. cit., p. 51

Epilogue 393

but there is no definite evidence to place them in historical chronology. Both are known as authors of reputed Dharmasāstra texts. Vasistha plays an important role in the Rāmāyana story. Yajnavalkya enjoys a place of high respect in the philosophical system of the Upanisads. On the basis of their associations with kings of Videha we have proposed c. 975-900 Bc as the date for Yajñavalkya28 and c. 775-700 Bc as the date for Vasistha.29 We may suggest that this systematisation occurred in the period of the Upanişads.

Grund Text in the Moksadharmaparva Hopkins had pointed out the close similarity in several passages in the Moksadharmaparva section of the Santiparva. At times many verses are identical in them.30 P. Chakravarti31 points out that three different chapters (XII.194, 247, 285), in expounding, adhyātma, which is actually a statement of the main principles of Samkhya, present the same details and, at several places, in identical verses. Chakravarti takes this to suggest that these verses were taken from a common source. E. Frauwallner32 takes the three sets of chapters in the Moksadharmaparva section, namely XII. 194, 247-9 and 287, as being so closely related as to be the three versions of one text, which he refers as epischen Grund text des Samkhya. According to him, it originated before the, writing of the Moksadharmaparva. Frauwallner takes it to be the first articulation of Samkhya theory and places it in the perjod after the oldest Upanisads and roughly contemporary with the rise of Buddhism. It is to be noted that the Moksadharmaparva is full of chapters presenting. Samkhya doctrines. In. many cases we have the names of a particular Samkhya teacher as expounding them. In the

28 See supra chapter 5. 29 See supra chapter 10. 30. The Great Epic of India, p. 31. Op. cit., pp. 54-6. 32. "Untersuchungen zum Moksadharma", WZKM, XXXII (1925), pp. 179-206.

394 Retrieving Samkhya History

present instance we have three sets of chapters, of which Vyasa is the narrator of one and Bhisma of the other two. It is clear that these two do not present the system as expounded by some earlier thinkers. These are not three separate accounts given by three different philosophers. It is not easy to comprehend why Bhisma should expound Samkhya twice in identical verses in the same text and why should the compiler include identical verses(and chapters) in three places in the same Moksadharmaparva. If there was a Grund text or an original, why should three corrupt versions of it be accommodated in the same section. Because the names of the authors of these chapters, or of the expounders of the three versions of the doctrine, are not known, we cannot describe them as three versions of one and the same text. We suggest that the three presentations of the system were made at three places in the section, which, being of the same period and covering the same ground, had naturally many common points and similar expressions. The standardisation was effected by the compiler of the Moksadharmaparva section and he used some expressions and even verses at more than one place. We argue that these doctrines represent an early stage in the history of Samkhya, but they are by no means its earliest form. We are of the view that some of the expositions attributed to the early Samkhya philosophers in the Mahabharata are possibly based on some early traditions and hence are earlier than the Grund text set of chapters. The standardisation in the chapters of the Grund text was effected by the compiler of the Moksadharmaparva. It did not require much change in the views and contents; it was effected more in ite form and extent. The date of this standardisation will be roughly the same as the date of Moksadharmaparva section in the Santiparva of the Mahabharata.

Gita Reference to Standardisation

The Gita contains a very clear reference to a standardisation affected in the Samkhya system. In the eighteenth chapter it mentions five causes (karanani), which are requisite for the successful completion (siddhi) of any action. It says that these are

Epilogue 395

enunciated in the krtanta samkhya." This expression means 'Samkhya whose conclusions have been established'. It shows that the Samkhya had diverse and conflicting views, which were systematised and a final statement of the position was established. On the basis of this reference, it can be inferred that sometime before the composition of the Gita the divergent Samkhya views were reconciled to arrive at a settled conclusion. The date of this systematisation is difficult to settle. The date of the composition of the Gita is itself a subject of wide differences in views. Without claiming a precise date for it, we can only say that the systematisation was brought about before the composition of the Gita, We may further hazard the guess that this was possibly different from and later than the systematisation recorded in the Moksadharmaparva and associated with the names of Vasistha and Yajnavalkya and the one represented by the three chapters suggesting a Grund text. The above study demonstrates that the view of Samkhya system being expounded in all its details from the very beginning and remaining static and fixed in later times does not stand the test of historical serutiny. The system has evolved and grown in course oftime and, on many occasions, the diversity of views were reconciled and a compact and coherent system was presented. We cannot trace all such attempts and different stages. But the few which can be detected indicate the possibilities of its history.

33. XVIII.13 pařcemáni mahábáho káranami nibodha me 1 samkhya krtānte proktaní siddhaye sarvakarmanām I1

= . ..-..

• Appendix I

Voḍhu

Vodhu as Samkhya Teacher VODHU was an early Samkhya teacher.1 The Vamana Purāna2 mentions his name as one of the early Samkhya philosophers. His name occurs in the list of Samkhya teachers in the Gauda- padabhasya.3 The traditional list of sages entitled to tarpana contains the names of Samkhya teachers, Vodhu being one of them.4

1. H.S. Joshi, Sāmkhyayogadarsana kā jīrņoddhāra, pp. 53-4, 37-8, 32- 3 Bays that his name occurs in the list of Samkhya teachers in the Mahdbharata and Chinese and Tibetan tradition and in the Vayu Purdna list of yogins, Keith, The Samkhya System, pp, 51-2 also mentions the reference to his name in the Epic and the Chinese translation of the commentary on the Samkhyakdrikd. We do not find the name of Vodhu in the Mahabhdrata and the Vayu Purdna. We are not aware of a Tibetan tradition on this point. The Chinese tradition evidently refers to the Chinese translation of Paramartha's commentary of the Samkhyakdrika. The sequence of Samkhya teachers between Pancasikha ańd Isvarakįsna, according to this source, is Ho-Kia, Uluka and Po-p'o-li. Voddhu is not mentioned here. Possibly Joshi takes Po-p'o-li to stand for Vodhu. But, this is totally misconceived. Po- p'o-li is rendered as Bat-ba-li in the Japanese version, which, according to P. Chakravarti, op. cit., p. 132, corresponds to Baddhali of the Yuktidipikd list. Keith suggests the name of Vidhu in place of Ulūka, but there is no cogent reason in its favour. 2. XXXIV. 38. 3. Gaudapādabhāșya 4. Atharvaveda Parisişta.

398 Retrieving Samkhya History

The appearance of Vodhu's name in the tarpana list shows that he was revered as an eminent Samkhya philosopher, to whom a grateful posterity pays homage to remind itself of its indebtedness to him. All these names are those of early sages which shows that Vodhu is to be assigned a place in the early history of Samkhya philosophy. In the Vamana Purana the name of Vodhu is mentioned as a Samkhya philosopher along with its first two celebrities, Kapila and Āsuri.

Absence of Reference There is no reference to any work composed by Vodhu. The later texts do not quote any passage from his work. Nor do we find any reference to his views on any of the problems. Isvarakrsna mentions the names of only Kapila, Āsuri and Pancasikha in, the early history of Samkhya.5 The absence of a reference to Vodhu can be explained on the ground that he did not belong to the philosophical lineage of Kapila continued by Asuri and Pañcasikha. He possibly represented a different tradition in Sārkhya.

Historicity The Vamana Purana mentions Vodhu as the son of Dharma and Himsã. Such a mythological origin does not disprove the historicity of the person; it was intended to emphasise his importance in a figurative manner. Among the traditional names of early Sarkhya teachers, Keith concedes historical reality to Vodhu. In the manual for tarpana Vodhu, along with six others, is mentioned as the seven human beings (sapta manusyas) entitled to it.

Senior to Asuri The position of Vodhu in the tarpana list of Samkhya sages shows a variation. In one list he appears after Kapila and in another after Asuri.6 The tradition that Kapila communicated his views to Asuri,

5. Sāmkhyakārikā, 70. 6. H.S. Joshi, op. cit .; Keith, op. cit.

Appendix I 399

who, in his turn, taught them to Pancasikha, would suggest that Vodhu did not precede Asuri. It may be argued that Asuri taught Sämkhya principles to more than one disciple. Ofthese, Pañcasikha founded a school, but possibly Vodhu did not establish an independent school. It is, however, to be noted that there is no inherent difficulty in placing Vodhu before Asuri. Vodhu was an early Samkhya teacher being mentioned along with Kapila and Asuri. Becasue he differed from the Samkhya tradition of Kapila down to Pancasikha, his chronological position was remembered vaguely and hence his name was differently located in the list of Samkhya teachers.7 The suggestion of Vodhu being a senior contemporary of Asuri is supported by the evidence of the Vamana Purana which names Sämkhya teachers in the sequence of Kapila, Vodhu and Āsuri.

Weber on Vodhu Weber8 had identified Vodhu with the Buddha. According to him, the orthodox tradition had corrupted Buddha into Vodhu. Vodhu, it is to be noted, cannot be the Prakrt form of Buddha. The Buddha himself had favoured the use of Prakrt. The name of Buddha in texts of Sanskrit and Prakrt alike always appears as Buddha. There is no justification for suggesting Vodhu to be a corrupt form of Buddha. In ancient records we have several instances of such queer names. It was only in the infancy of Indological studied that such fanciful suggestions could be offered. With the progress of research the separate identity of Buddha and Vodhu cannot cause a misgiving.

7. According to Keith, op. cit., it would be unwise to place any faith on these evidences of chronology. 8. Cited by Garbe, Samkhya Philosophie, p. 72.

Appendix II

Asita-Devala in Isibhāsiyāi

Isibhāsiyai - An Ancient Jain Text THE Isibhasiyai (Rșibhașitani)1 is one of the most ancient Jaina āgamic works. Thananga (Sthananga)2 mentions it as the third chapter of the Panhāvāgaraņāim (Praśnanavyākarana), the tenth anga. But the text of the Panhavägaranāim, being a post-Gupta replacement of the original, does not contain this chapter. The Samaväyanga3 also knows the Isibhasiyai and describes it as containing forty-four ajjhayana (adhyayana). This tallies with the form of the Isibhasiyai which has fortyfive sections.4 The text evidently was of considerable significance to the Jainas, because the scholiast, who wrote the Avassayanijjutti (Avasyaka-niryukti)

1. Isibhasiyaim. A Jaina Text of Early Period, ed. by Walther Schubring L.D. Series 45, Ahmedabad, 1974. It was originally published in Den Nachrichten der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, 1942, pp. 489-576. The Sanskrit commentary was published in the same Akademie, 1951, pp. 21-52. The second edition of the text published from Hamburg in 1969 contains its German translation as well. Prakrit Bharati Series No. 46 offers the text with translation in English and Hindi. 2 Sthāna, 10, sūtra 755. 3. Samavđya 44. 4. According to Schubring, op. cit., p. 2, the difference in the number of sections is to be explained by the fact that section no. 20 of the text does not correspond to the pattern of other sections, each of which is associated with the utterence of a rsi. There is no such explanation of the Vihimaggapava ($ 1363* AD 1441) of Jinaprabha mentioning fifty as the number of sections in it.

402 Retrieving Samkhya History

(erroneously taken as the celebrity, Bhadrababu), expresses his resolve to write a nijjutti on it also." The Suyagada (Sūtrakrtanga)" names certain earlier"Mahapurusa Arhats" whoevidently belonged to the Vedic tradition and achieved the position of Arhats by resorting to ways and practices which generally are not approved by Jainism. The term iha used here refers to Jaina canonical literature. But the author of the commentary explains it to signify Rsibhasita and other texts(Rsibhasitadau). The text commanded respect in Jaina literature, It was accepted as a kaltya text, which, though not included in the angas, was approved for the study hours in the daily time-table." On the basis of 'numerous indisputably genuine early reminiscences in language and style' Schubring places it in the category of the most ancient Jaina agamas such as the Ayara (Acara, particularly its first part, the Bambhaceraim), the Suyagada (Sütrakrta), the Uttarajjhaya (Uttaradhyayana) and the Dasaveyaliya® (Dasavaikalika). The Isibhasiyai doubtless has parallels in language and expression with these four texts. In the number of stanzas, the predominace of slokas and the extent of prose the Isibhasiyai is closest to the Dasaveyaliya; in the diversity of the metres it is like the Dasaveyaliya, Uttarajjhaya and Sūyagada." Like the Bambhaceraim, our text is characterised by an intermingling of prose with verse, in which 'whole stanzas, half stanzas and single padas alternate with unmetrical executions' The author of the text, as ascertained by Schubring, was close to Jina Parsva from the doctrinal standpoint. This is indicated by the greater importance given to Parsva in devoting a rather long passage for expounding his dictum.10 The text, moreover, does not separate the fourth and fifth vows seprately as was the case with the Caturyama-dharma preached by Parsva before Vardhamana

5. Avassaya-nijjutti, II.6 6 Ibid., II1.4.1-4 - ete puuvim mahapurisa ahita iha sammata I 7. Nandi (Agamodaya Samiti) 202b; Pakkhiya (Devchand Lalbhai Pustakoddhara), 4, 66a. 8 Op. cit., p. 2. 9 Ibid., p. 7. 10 Section 31, pp. 66-9.

Appendix II 403

Mahavira. The Isibhasiyai was evidently still under the influence of Parsva. It fuses the fourth and fifth vows into one. The text breathes an atmosphere of liberal attitude which may have characterised the early days in the history of Jainism. It pays respect to many thinkers and religious leaders outside the Jaina fold by collecting their sayings to form a canonical work. Some of these belonged to the Vedic or Brahmanical tradition. We also find Mamkhaliputta" (Maskariputra Gosala) and the Buddhists Mahākāsava"(Mahākāsyapa) and Saiputta (Sariputra)-buddha.1 There are, in the text, certain views which could not have been tolerated in later days of Jainism, when orthodoxy had settled down and anything inconsistent with the set doctrines, dogmas and practices could not expect an honourable reference. Section 20 introduces an anonymous utkata-vadin place of a rsi and mentions, with a fair show of approval, his materialism. We have an 'unjinistic' recognition of farming as divva kist" and a reference to cosmogonic theories, including one about the origin of the world from water.1 Likewise, orthodox Jainism of later times could not have accepted the equation of Parsva, Mahavira, and latter's adversary Gosala Maskariputra, alike as pratyekabuddhas, which we find in our text. These 'strange things' in the text explain, according to Schubring, why it fell into 'nearly complete oblivion'1 and created uncertainty about it in later writings. This exemplified by the confusion about it in Haribhadra's commentary on the Avassayanijjutti. In it the Isibhasiyai is identified at one place"7 with the canonical Painna (Prakirņaka) named Devindatthaya (Devendra-stava), and in another"" with the Uttarajjhaya. We already have referred to the later confusion about the number of sections in the text.

11. Section 11. 12 Section 9. 13 Section 38 14 Sections 26 and 32 15 Section 37 - savvamiņam purā udagamaxi tti i 16 Op. cit., p. 9. 17 On Avassaya-nijjutti, II.6. 18 Ibid, VII1.5

404 Retrieving Samkhya History

A pointer to date of the text is the reference to Gosala Maskariputra. The Viyahapannatti19(Vyakkya-prajnapti)(c. second- third century AD) represents him as a renegade disciple of Mahāvira, but in our text he does not suffer from any such humiliation. On the contrary he enjoys an honoured position as a pratyekabuddha. This transformation in his status in Jaina perception must have taken a long period. Thus, the Isibhasiyai is to be place a few centuries before the selfsame (and other passages are similar in vein and style) in the Viyahapannatti.

Characteristics of the Text

The emphasis on ethical thought is the main characteristic of the text. It brings out the common points in the ethical ideas of the early religions of different traditions. The metaphysical and doctrinal details and differences, which dominate later sectarian and scholastic texts, did not receive any importance from the author of this text. This also is a significant pointer to the early date of the text.20

Rsis in the Text

Our text purports to collect the views of rsis. Generally the word rsi is used for a sage. It is supposed to be synonymous with muni. But, in our text it is employed in the special sense of a pratyekabuddha, A pratyekabuddha is a person, who, having realised the highest knowledge, acquired the status of the buddha for himself but, unlike the buddha, did not found a school or community. That the pratyekabuddhas of our text had no intention to teach, though they had their own characteristic views, is clear from the fact that the word buitam (dictum) and not pannattam (teaching) is used for them.1 Under the name of rsi or pratyekabuddha the text records the views of forty-five thinkers, though in one case the actual name of the rsi is not mentioned.

19. On Avassaya-nijjutti, 15. 20 Sagarmal Jain, Rşibhaşita: Eka Adhyayana Jaipur, 1988, p. 9 places the text between the fifth and third centuries BC. 21. Schubring, op, cit., p. 2.

Appendix II 405

The text does not give enough details to identify the rsis or to locate them in time and place in all the cases. However, some of them can be easily identified with personalities mentioned in early texts of Brahmanical tradition, for example, Jannavakka (- Yajnavalkya), Bāhuya (= Bāhuka or Nala), Soriyāyaņa (= Sauryāyani), Addalaka (= Uddalaka) and Aruņa Mahāsālaputta (= Āruņi). The Brähmana association is clear in the cases of Pinga, Isigiri (Rsigiri) and Sirigiri (Srigiri) who are called māhana- parivvayaga (brāhman-parivrajaka),"Other names in this category are Asiya Davila (=Asita Devala), Angarisi Bharaddāya (= Angiras Bhāradvāja), deva Nārāya (= devarși Nārada)," Divāyana (= Dvaipāyana) and Mātanga. Vāu (= Vāyu), Soma, Jama (= Yama) and Varuna are the four Lokapalas (Regents of the Quarters) in the Brähmanical pantheon from very early times. Some names, for which we cannot adopt a very definite view (but some of them can still he identified), are Madhurāyaņa (= Mathurāyaņa), Tarāyaņa (= Tārāgaņa, more probably sage Nārāyaņa), Āriyāyaņa, Varisava- Kanha(-Varisakanha or Vārsaganya, the ancient Sāmkhya teacher). About Harigiri, Kumbhaputta. Pupphasālaputta, Ramaputta (correctly Rāmagutta), Gahāvaiputta (= Gāthāpatiputra) Taruņa, Ketaliputta34 and Vidu ( =? Vidura) we are less certain. Besides Vaddhamāna (= Vardhamāna Mahāvira) and Pāsa (Pārśva), we have Mamkhaliputta (= Gośāla Maskariputra), Sāiputta (= Sāriputra) Buddha and mahai Mahākāsava (= Mahākāsyapa). Vajjiyaputta possibly also had a Buddhist association and belonged to the Vajji republic.35 Vagalaciri (= Vakkalacīri), Jaina Rsyaśṛnga, enjoyed a place of high respect in the eyes of the author of the text being referred to as viyatta bhagavam and uggatava. The other names in the text are Metajja (Maitreya), Bhayali, Samjai

22. Ambada is also called parivudyaga. His interlocutor is Jagamdharâyana (= Yaugamdharāyaņa). 23. Schubring, op. cit., pp. 4-5 prefers to identify him with prince Naraya of Baravaf. 24. Schubring, op. cit., p. 4 suggests it to be a perplexity varient of Tetaliputta in section 10. 25. Schubring (ibid.) describes him as the hend of the school of the Vatsl. putras, i.e., Vatsiputra

406 Retrieving Samkhya History

( -? Sanjaya)," Dagabhala,"7 Varattaya Addaga, Indanāga (Indranāga) and Vesamana (Vaiśravaņa). Some of these names occur in some other Jaina texts as well. The Suyagada18 (c. second century Bc) mentions Asita, Devala, Dvaipāyana, Parāsara, Nami-videhi Rāmagupta, Bahuka and Nārāyaņa as mahāpurusa who achieved the highest knowledge, even though they followed ways not approved by Jainism. Confirmation of the names from other Jaina writings and non- Jaina texts makes a strong case for the historicity of most of the names mentioned in the Isibhasiyai. In the case of some others, we can postulate a quasi-historical existence, as they were handed down by a long and persistent tradition. (The four Lokapalas and Vaisravaņa are of course Vedic divinities). In section 3 the name of the rsi in the introductory prose passage is Asiya Davila. The concluding prose sentence mentions him simply as Davila. Schubring" feels no difficulty in taking Asita Devala to be the original of Asiya Davila. There cannot be any objection to equating Asiya with Asita. But Devala, as the original of Davila, is not so easy to explain. However, considering the major changes occurring in the name of other sages in the text and the form Davila (as intermediary between Devala and Davila), the restoration is to be accepted. Here I intend to discuss the identity of "Asita Devala" with particular reference to his characteristic ideas as stated in the Isibhāsiyāi. At the very outset it is to be pointed out that, though Asita Devala is mentioned as the name of a single person, the Sūyagada30

26. Schubring, op, cit., p. 7 equates him with a king whose name is Sanskritised as Samyata. 27. Schubring (ibid.) identifies him with Gaddabhali, the teacher of Samjaya - Samyata 28 L3.4.1-4 29. Op. cit., p.5. 30. I.3.4.3- asile devile ceva divayana mhanrist 1 nardsare sagam bhoccā biyâni hariyani 11

Appendix II 407

makes Asita and Devala two different persons. The commentator Sila-suri (c. third quarter of the ninth century AD) falls in line with the Suyagada.21 There is some other Jaina evidence in support of Asita alone being the name of an individual. The Isimandala instead mentions the name as Devilasuta." There is no doubt that the Isimandala has Asita Devala of the Isibhasiyai in mind, because the introductory phrases in the two cases are closely parallel." In Brahmanical tradition Asita Devala sometimes appears as one single name. But Devala alone is generally used as the name for an ancient sage respected as an authority alike in the Ayurveda and the Samkhya, besides being a Smrti writer. Hence, we would not involve ourselves in the discussion whether there were more than one Devala, or the first Devala made contributions to many areas ofknowledge. The varied contributions of Devala are reflected in the quotations from the Devaladharmasutra surviving in medieval commentaries and digests. The main burden of the teaching of Asita Devala in the Isibhasiyai is the cessation of all moral impurities or sins (sawvalevovarata). The introductory prose passage begins by saying that those who are contaminated by moral impurities (levovalitta) revolve for a long time in this ocean of world. It seems that after samsarasagaram the expression anupariyattanti is missing. Likewise, in the following sentence the word levovarata also seems to have been dropped." The second sentence says, by way of contrast, that the person whose moral impurities have ceased.

api ca asilo nama maharsistatha devilo dvaipayanaseca tatha parāsarakhya ityevamádayah bijaharitádiparibhogādeva siddha ii srūyate i 12 Here it is said that king Devilasuta nearly married his own daughter We do not have any confirmation of this fact about Asita, Devala, or Asita Devala from any other source and are not in a position to offer any explanation of it 33. The Isibhasiyai has bhaviyavvam khalu bho savvalevavratenam. whereas the Isimandala reads bhaviyavvam bho khalu savva-kama virena'eyam ajjhayanam bhasittu devilāsuya rāyarisi siva suham patto 1 34. Schubring, op, cit., p. 103

408 Retrieving Samkhya History having crossed the world, reaches a permanent abode and remains there. A number of adjectives describe the happy state of such a person: The text adds that, 'having resolved to become a man free from all moral impurities, Asita Davila, the arhat-rsi, (thus) said'. The eleven verses which follow are supposed to record the teachings of Davila. Thus it begins: He, who does violence (vihimsate) to the life of a small or big being, has his soul over-dominated by attachment and malignity (ragadosabhibhūtappā) and he is contaminated by sinful acts (lippatepāvakammuņā)35(verse 1). He, who takes any belongings (pariggaham ginhate), whether little or considerable, is contaminated by sinful acts on account of the guilt of stupefication caused bỳ greed (gehlmucchaya dosenam)36 (verse 2). He, who expresses anger (koham), on his own or for another person, is contaminated by sinful acts on account of the chains caused by it (verse 3). After this we have a note saying: 'In this manner up to micchadamsanasalla."7 The term appears as the last in the list of eighteen papas recognised in the Jaina tradition38 and signifies a false philosophy of life. Verse 4 enumérates as moral impurities (leva) killing a living thing (nanativate), saying untruth (aliyavayanam), stealing or taking wwhat has not been given away (adattam), intercourse (mehunagamanam) and amassing property (pariggaham). Verse 5 mentions anger (kohe), conceit (māno), deceit (maya), and greed (lobho) as moral impurities which are of various forms or types (bahuviho, bahuvidhavidhle and bahuvidha). Hence, having considered them to be the cause for-augmenting sinful acts, one should be a noble seeker of the best goal and should become a 35. " Verse 2 has lipptie-place'of lippate! 36. Here and in verse 8 geht is to be rehdered as grddhi, from the root grdh to covet, desire, strive after greedily. 37. Salla (- Salya) meaning'a spear, dart or arrow also stahds for an extraneous substance lodged in the body and giving it very great pain. Figuratively it signifies any cause of poignant or heart-rending grief. The word also means sin or crime. 38. A.M. Sethiya, Jaina Siddhanta bola samgraha, Vol. 3, p. 182.

Appendix II 409

wandering ascetic for vigorous efforts39(verse 6). As milk is destroyed after being associated with poison, attachment and malignity are the destroyer after being associated with poison, attachment and malignity are the destroyer of continence (bambhacera) (verse 7).40 As the best of milk by stúpefication is turned into curd, so the sinful acts increase on account of the guilt of greed (verse 8).41The Jungle trees in a forest, when burnt by the wild fire, grow again, but, in the case of people exhumed by the fire of anger, it is very difficult to be free from unhappiness (verse 9).42 Even the fiercely burning fire can be extinguished by water, but the fire of delusion cannot be extinguished by all the water in the sea (verse 10).43 He, who has realised the nature of the shackles of birth and death, has broken the (cycle of) birth and death and is free from the dust (of action), achieves final beatitude (verse, 11),4 At the end we have a summarised sentence,45 the full form of

39. tamha te tam vikimcitta pāvakammapavaddhanam uttamatthavaraggaht vtriyattđe parivvae 1 40. khtre dūsim jadha pappa vinđsamuvagacchati I evar rāgo va doso vā bambhaceraviņāsanā 1I 41. jadha khiram padhanam tu mucchand jayate dadhim I evar gehippadoseņar pāvakammam pavaddhatt I 42. rannę davaggin daddha rohamte vanapādavā 11 ,kohaggiņā tu daddhānam dukkhā dukkhanam na nivattatt 11 The Sanskrit Tika cannot make out any sense in the second line of the verse and remarks: munestu krodhagnind dagdhāndm duhkhānām nivartanam pratyāgamo na bhavati l kastu nama duhkhariam pratyāgamàmicchedityaspastam Il The commentator fails to notice that in the earlier two verses also the comparisons are not completély parallel in the use of the expressions, even though the main points are clear. The Prakrit Bharati edition translates the line as meaning 'so does the reviving vice, thanks to the wrathfulness of man'. 43. sakkā vaņhi nivāretum váriņā jalito bahim I savvodahijalenđvi mohaggi dunnivārao 1! The Sanskrit Tika does not take any notice of verses 10 and 11. 44. jassa ete parinņātă jatimaranabamdhaņā ! se chinnajatimarane siddhim gacchati nrae II 45. evam se buddhe ... no punaravi iccattham havvamagacchati tli bemi I

410 Retrieving Samkhya History which appears earlier at the end of the first section. The fuller sentence is to be translated thus: Isay, Thus becoming enlightened, indifferent (to worldly attachment), freed from sins, restrained, taking all objects to be the same, and a renouncer," he does not come again for the activities of this (world)."' We have to discuss the extent to which these passages represent Asita Devala's own words and ideas. According to Schubring the whole text was composed by one single author; the parallelism in the structure of the individual chapters proves this 'not less than the throughout uniform style and the numerous self-quotations'. He admires the text as being original and attractive." The 'charm of novelty' of the text reveals itself when contrasted with the 'uniform creation' of contemporary parallel texts which are only 'more or less cleverly and transparently composed compilations' Our author has adorned the passages borrowed from the words of the rsis by covering them with 'the plumage of its own'. This has camouflaged the original words of these rsis to such an extent that their disciples 'would indeed have stood perplexed before these splinters from the thought workshop of the master'.

Exposition of the Views For determining the original views and expressions of any rsi in this text, we have to concentrate on the motto and the exposition parts of the concerned section. The sections do not show a uniform style in regard to these two. They are in any of three forms, prose, verses, or both mixed together. The variation is more noticeable in the case of motto."The variations, as against a stereotyped uniformity, may be construed to show that the form and expressions in the different sections result from the peculiarities in the original expression of the teachings of the different rsis.

46. Tai may be rendered as either tydgi or trayt. In the second case it will mean protector 47. Schubring, op cit., p, 9 48, Ibid., pp. 8-9. 49 Schubring, op, cit., p. 3.

Appendix I1 411

Devala Section The nature of the text compelled the author to make 'greater borrowings' from the original. Schubring has suggested that in the motto and exposition portions, stanzas, in a metre other than the sloka, would generally appear to have been borrowed by the author from some other source. Likewise, some prose passages are parallel to passages in other texts and were 'more or less conscious reminiscence'.5 These two criteria of the metre of the stanzas and the expression in the prose passages do not help us much in the case of the section on Devala and we will have to analyse the content of the section for internal indications. In the section we notice a visible attempt to cast Devala's ideas into the mould of Jainism. Schubring1 points out that verse III.1 and III.2 of the text deal respectively with the guilt effected by pranātipāta and parigraha, i.e., the violation of the first and fifth mahavratas (vows) in Jainism. The second of the four manuscripts of the text, which Alsdorf photographed in Jain Bhandar in 1957, inserts three verses between lines a and b of verse 2.5ª They refer to the guilt effected by the violation of the second (speaks the untruth - musam bhasae), third (takes what is not given - adinnam genhai) and fourth (enjoys intercourse - mehunam sevai) vows. According to Schubring,3 these verses 'do not make the expression of an old text'. He admits that the insertion of these stanzas, relating to the second, third and fourth vows, is logical in itself. But, considering the approach of the author in a parallel situation in an

50. Schubring, p. 9. 51 Op. cit., p. 126. 52 Ibid., pp. 126-27 jo musam bhdsae kimci appam va jai va bahum I appana' attha parassa va lippae pave-kammana II adinnam genhai jo ... mehunam sevai jo u tericcham divvam manusam I raga-dosa abhibhaya' appa lippae pava-kammana I1 53. Ibid., p, 127, He refers to the metrical defect in lines 2, 3 and 5 and to the use of kammand instead of kammund of verses 1-3.

412 Retrieving Samkhya History earlier section of the text (1.19ff), where he mentions only the first, third and fourth vows, we can say that it was not imperative on his part to include these five lines to cover the second, third and fourth vows. The Sanskrit Tika and Prakrit Bharati edition also do not take cognizance of these five lines. It seems that somebody, with a view to fitting the stanzas into the Jaina formulation ofmahavratas, added these lines. An analysis of the subsequent portions of the text makes it clear that the author did not have the model of the mahauratas in his mind. In verse 3 he refers to the expression of anger (koham) as a factor causing contamination with sinful acts, on the same footing as the killing of beings and the taking of belongings. Verse 3 is followed by the expression evam java micchadamsanasalle. The author, thus, intends to cover factors, the first three being mentioned in the first three verses, which go up to micchadamsanasalle, The Jaina tradition mentions eighteen papa-karmas.34 Of these the first is pranatipata (verse 1 of our text), the second, third and fourth are respectively mrsāvāda, adattādāna and maithuna (five lines in the manuscript mentioned above), the fifth is parigraha (verse 2 of our text), the sixth is krodha (verse 3 of our text) and the eighteenth is mithya-darsanasalya.53 Thus, according to the author of the text, Devala also spoke about the eighteen påpa-karmas, beginning from prāņātipāta and ending with mithyādarsanasalya. The intention of the author becomes quite clear when in verses 4-5 he enumerates the guilt-contaminations as pānātivato aliyavayanam, adattam, mehunagamanam, pariggaham, koho, māno, māyā and lobho, which occur in the same order as the first nine papa-karmas in the Jaina tradition. Clearly, he was straining hard to present Devala's verses on lepas within the pattern of Jaina enumeration of påpa- karmas.

54. A.M. Sethiya, op. cit. 55. From the seventh to the seventeenth we have mana, maya, lobba; rūga, dveșa, klesa, abhyākhyāna, pišunatā, paraparivāda, rati-arati and mayd-mrsd

Appendix II 413

Approach and Style of the Author Schubring points out quite a few mistakes and contradictions in the text,54 some of which were due to the defective tradition on which the author drew, while he was doubtlessly responsible for some others. It is, however, not possible to fix the responsibility on the author or tradition in each case. But, it is to be noted that the author was not satisfied to work as a mere cataloguer or compiler of the views of others. He had a definite plan or purpose and he asserted his rights as an author to realise it. As pointed out earlier, he wanted to emphasise the ethical parts in the teachings of the thinkers. The omission of other aspects of their teachings was bound to project a partial or lopsided picture of their total teachings. In his effort to project the ethical problems of the ideas of his predecessors, with the view to bringing home the homogenity and universality of the ethical core of different religions, our author could have inadvertently, and in some cases deliberately, ironed out the divergent details. This possibly happened in the case of Devala's teachings also. The attempt on the part of the author to present the teachings of Devala to suit his convenience is to be seen in the structure of the section. Like all other sections in the text it has three distinct parts: the motto, the exposition separated from it by the name of the rsi, and the conclusion. No amount of reasoning will convince anyone to believe that all the forty-four rsis formulated their views in the stereotyped form in which they occur in our text. This holds good for the section on Devala also. The absurdity is apparent in the case of the concluding sentence. Though it purports to be an utterance of a particular rsi, it has a set formula of words, so much so that the author dispenses with the formality of reproducing it in full in all the sections and instead gives the opening and concluding expression. Clearly the sentence recording the concluding resolve of the different

56, Op.cit.,p.11: 'wavering in the judging of the riddhi (9 and 45), and the error concerning the agandhana (45), the repeated use of the same motto in 26 and 32, the transformation of current names, the Rsi Ketaliputta besides Tetaliputta'.

414 Retrieving Sâmkhya History rsis could not have been identical, even if we admit the closest similarities in their views. Thus, in the present section also we see the working of the hands of the author who wanted to present Devala's teachings according to his scheme and structure. The very first line of the introductory prose passage shows that the central point in Devala's teachings is leva (lepa), contamination of sin. Verses 4 and 5 confirm it. The first three verses explain leva by employing the descriptive expression lippata pāvakammunā as the refrain. Later on, verses 6 and 8 also speak of the pavakamma getting augmented.

Comparison with Devaladharmasutra The original work of Devala is not available. On the basis of quotations in later works we can reconstruct some parts of the erstwhile Devaladharmasutra.57 The text, it is revealed, possessed one full chapter concerning pāpa-dosas. Prayascitta, doubtless, had formed an important part of the dharmasastra literature. But only a few Smrtis refer, and that too very briefly, to the papas. The account of päpa-dosas in the Devaladharmasūtra is without any parallel in any other Brahmanical text. It classifies papa-doșas broadly into three on the basis of their origin from mind, speech, or body. These three are further divided respectively into twelve, six and four sub-types. Each of these is first defined and explained in prose passages in the form of sutras. They are followed by verses explaining or illustrating in a more popular style the nature of the different papa-dosas. Thus, the chapter of papa-dosas would appear to be one of the more significant portions of the Devaladharmasûtra. It was quite proper, then, on the part of the author of the Isibhasiyai to include an account of the contamination casused by sin on the basis of the treatment of the subject by Devala. We have seen above that in the first three verses of our text there was a deliberate attempt to accommodate Devala's views in the Jaina pattern. But, even in this process, the original kernel of Devala's writings peeps out. Thus, in the first two verses, though 57. Our reconstruction is to be published separately.

Appendix II 415

the violations of the vows of ahimsa and aparigraha are treated, it is clear that the original emphasis was on raga-dosa (attachment and malignity) and gehi (greed) as factors causing contamination of sinful acts. The author could not pursue this exercise of his for long, probably because there was not enough material in Devala's verses amenable to the Jaina scheme. He included a verse on koho (anger) and finally gave up the exercise by remarking that in this way it goes up to micchadamsanasalla. This incongruity becomes still more clear in the subsequent verses. Verse 8 again refers to the increase in sinful acts on account of the guilt of gehi (greed). Gehi (Skt. grddhi) does not appear in the Jaina list of eighteen papas. It does not occur in the Devaladharmasütra either. But, we find that in the extant quotations from Devala, the verses describing lobha contain three which bring out the significance of trsna or trsa. We cannot rule out the possibility that some of the lost verses contained a similar reference to grddhi. Further onward, in verse 10, the papa, which has been underlined, is followed by moha. Moha also does not figure in the Jaina list of the 18 papa-sthanakas. But it has been included by Devala in the list of twelve papa-dosas which arise out of the mind. Verses 6 and 11, though touched by the author of the Isibhasiyai, retain words with a specific usage characteristic of the Brahmanical tradition to which Devala belonged. The second line of the verse 6 reads: uttamatthavaraggahi viriyattae parivvae. In the expression uttamattha, attha has been used in the sense of one of the pursuits of life (purusarthas), In the Jaina texts the usual term in such a context would be esana. The expression uttamattha here stands for moksa which is described as the highest or ultimate pursuit of life. The verb pariuvae is to be derived from the Sanskrit verb pariuraj and is to be connected with the words parivrajya, parivraj, pariurāja and parivrajaka. They refer to a wandering mendicant, recluse, or nscetic who has renounced the world. In the religious atmosphere prevailing at the time of the appearance of the Buddha, the order 58 For a similar use of the verb prauraj see Jabalopanisad, 4 - vant bhütvapraurajet: Baudhayanadharmasūtra, 1110.2,18 - brahmo caryavan pravrajatrityekesām i

416 Retrieving Samkhya History

of the pariurajakas was fairly prevalent. In the wake of the popularity of the Sramanic systems, the Brahmanical tradition made an effort to contain and control it by recognising it as the fourth stage of life (asrama). The fourth asrama in later times was generally termed samnyasa, but in earlier times the appellation parivrājaka seems to have been more in vogue. In one surviving except from the Devaladharmasütra,"the duties and rules relating to a pariurajaka are prescribed. Thus, it can be seen that verse 6 of our text advises that pursuing the ultimate purusartha (moksa) one should become a pariurajaka (enter the fourth asrama) and exert himself.5 Verse 11 says that he who has understood the nature of the chains of birth and death, breaks the eycle of birth and death and is taintless, attains siddhi. The word siddhi in a general sense often means fulfilment or success. But it has a restricted and specialised meaning as well. In the Yoga system siddhi (or aisvarya-guna) refers to suprerhuman powers or faculties, which are supposed to be eight in number. The Devaladharmasutra evidently contained a detailed account of the Yoga and Samkhya systems.61 Here siddhi seems to have been used in the technical sense common to the Yoga system and the Devaladharmasūtra. Verse 7 reveals the original words of Devala which seem to have escaped the changing hands of the author of the Isibhasiyai. It describes raga (attachment) and dosa (dvesa malignity) as the destroyer of bambhacera (brahmacarya). The use of the term bambhacera is significant. It stands for the first stage or order in the life of an individual (asrama), the life of celibacy passed by a brahmana boy in studying the Vedas, or celibacy, chastity, etc. The context, however, does not have any reference to the first stage of

59. Krtyakalpataru, Moksa p. 49 60. Viriyattae (Skt. otryartham) may be taken to make an indirect allusion to Jainism. Mahavira is the name of the twenty-fourth tirthamkara of the Jainas, who is oflen glorified as the real founder of Jainism 61 Sankara on Vedantastitra, 1.4.28. One of the earliest full account of the eight siddhis is associared with the Devaladharmasatra. Our article "Devaladharmasutra on Aisvarya", in Sri Dinesacandrika: Studies in Indology (D.C. Sircar Felicitation Volume), pp. 153-8.

Appendix II 417

life alone. Likewise, the passage will not yield a happy meaning if brahmacarya restricted to celibacy inasmuch as there is no direct and intimate connection between duesa and carya on the one hand and celibacy on the other. Among the many meanings of Brahman are 'Supreme Being', 'religious austerities', and 'intellect'. The carya of Brahman will, theafore, signify religous study or self- restraint. This use of the term brahmacarya in this verse appears to have survived from the original verse of Devala.“2

Early Features of the Section Against the background of these indications of the original Brähmanical core of Devala surviving the Jaina revision, we may refer to certain features of style and structure, which, though not conclusive, are compatible with the known features of Devala's writings in the available excerpts. First is the introductory prose passage. It is admitted that this portion of the text was intended to introduce the views of a rsi and hence would appear to have been formulated mostly by the author of the text. As against the other sections in the text associated with other rsis, whose original writings are not available, the section under study is to be compared with the views of Devala as recorded in a dharmasūtra named after him. This dharmasutra was partly in prose sūtras and partly in verses. The surviving prose passages of the Devaladharmasutra show a peculiar style. We often find long sentences, wherein the details are in the form of adjectives qualifying the main noun." This is also a feature of the introductory prose passage in the section associated with Devala. In the partly damaged second sentence we have several words qualifying samsarasagaram and thanam. The style comes out beautifully in the third sentence which has a long string of adjectives describing the characteristic of a sauvalavovarae person. We cannot argue, in the absence of the full

62 This seems to have been the original and early meaning of the term brahmacarya. This will be an indicator of an early date for Devala. 63. See, for example, passages on the four varnas in our article on "Devaladharmasutra on Varnas and Jatis", in Dr. R.N. Dandekar Felicitation Volume, Delhi 1984, pp. 239-45.

418 Retrieving Samkhya History text of the Devaladharmasutra, that these expressions or sentences occurred in the original, but, we can suggest that the author of our text possibly tried to present the introduction, which purports to record the motive or resolve of Devala, in the peculiar style he noticed as characterising the prose passages in Devala's original work. Another prominent feature of the style of the Devala- dharmasütra is that it first enumerates all the important points or subdivisions in a summarised form and then in subsequent verses elaborates, explains, and illustrates them. Although the full text of the Devaladharmasutra is unavailable, in all the cases where we are able to reconstruct a chapter, this style is evident. In our text the section on Devala also seems to possess this characteristic. This point is all the more significant because our author was not under any obligation to reproduce all the passages from Devala's original. He was presenting the views of Devala, within the frame-work of his text and the task taken up by him. Verses 1-3 followed by the remark evam java micchadamsanasalle show that the author cut short the portions dealing with the enumeration of the factors causing pavas. Verses 4-5 retain the style of enumeration in a pronounced manner. The subsequent verses (6-11) are evidently in the nature of further explanation and elaboration of the points or factors listed in the earlier verses. To illustrate our point, we may refer to verses 8 and 9 which bring home the force of gehi and koha mentioned as factors causing pdva in verses 2 and 3. A comparison of the phrasing of verses 2 and 8 will show the intrinsic connection between the two.4 This similarity in the style suggests that our author had before him the original Devaladharmasutra from which he drew. No doubt it may be argued that this characteristic is shared by early Indian thought as projected in some of the earlier works belonging to different branches oflearning. However, it must be remembered that it was not an invariate feature of Indian thought and texts, and, when compared with texts of a similar nature, the Deualadharmasutra has it in a very pronounced manner. 64. Both employ the terms muccha, gehi, dosenam and pavakamma in a specific sense,

Appendix II 419

A few other features of the passage attributed to Devala in our text may also be noted. We are conscious that they are found associated with many other early texts and are not so characteristic of the passages surviving in the name of Devala to drive home the connection between the two only on the basis of these features. The first is the metre sloka employed in our text. Though the metre has been used in the Devaladharmasutra also, it is the most convenient and popular metre for this type of writings and occurs in Sanskrit, Pali and Prākrt texts alike. The second pronounced feature noticeable in our text is the repetition of the same phrases in the fourth part of the verse as refrain. In verses 1 to 3 we find the word lippate pavakammuna being repeated thus. In verses 4 and 5 levo occurs seven times evidently for emphasising its importance. This feature can also be seen in many other texts with a religious, philosophical, dialectical, or ethical theme which resort a similar style for creating greater effect.

Another significant feature of the style in our text is the use of homely simile and illustration for clarifying the point. In verses 7 to 10 the illustrations are derived from the phenomena of milk being destroyed as a result of contamination with poison, milk turning into curd, forest trees being burnt by jungle fire and fire being controlled with the help of water. This feature is characteristic of many early Indian texts, particularly those which have to explain a difficult philosophical idea in an easy manner or which seek to create greater impact in emphasising the importance of a religious or ethical precept.

Appendix III

Al-Birūnī on Patanjali

Book of Patanjali AL-BIRONI refers to the Book of Patanjali (Kitab Patanjala) and gives long quotations from it.' He mentions it as a very famous book,2 as one of the three main texts for understanding the spiritual views of the Hindu, the other two being the Samkhya of Kapila and the Gita. According to Al-Biruni,3 the text is about 'the emancipation of the soul from the fetters of the body'. At another place4 he describes the book to be 'on the search for liberation and for the union of the soul with the object of its meditation'. The way Al-Birüni refers to it, along with the Samkhya work of Kapila, suggests that he regarded the book to be an important source for the allied discipline of Yoga. This creates the expectation that Al-Biruni was referring to the Yogasūtra of Patañjali.

Different from Yogasūtra But, there is a world of difference in the structure of Patanjali's book, as mentioned by Al-Biruni, and the known form of the Yogasutra. Moreover, as pointed out by Sachau," the philosophical

1 Sachau, Alberuni's India, s.u. Patańjali. 2 lbid., I, p. 29 3 1, p. 8. 4 I. p. 132 5 II, p. 264.

422 Retrieving Samkhya History system of Al-Bīrūni's Patañjali 'differs in many points essentially from that of the Sutras'. It is only in a very few cases that Sachau could trace remote parallels in the Yogasutra.6 The possiblity of Al- Biruni confusing between the commentary on Patañjali's Yogasūtra and its original text and adding details taken from the commentary is also ruled out. Sachau points out that 'the extracts given in the Indica stand in no relation with the commentary of Bhoja Raja, although the commentator here and there mentions ideas which in a like or similar form occur in Alberuni's work'. This holds good for all other commentaries on the Yogasutra, none of which contains passages similar to those quoted in Al-Birūni's, account. The importance of Patañjali's Ygasutra is so deep-rooted that people are not willing to appreciate the unequivocal testimony of Al-Biruni. They do not accept the obvious possiblity that there was another text on the subject which was also attributed to Patañjali. Thus, P. Chakravarti7 is not prepared 'to assume the existence of a different philosopher of the name of Patañjali other than the author of the Yogasutra'. His argument is that Al-Birunt's translation scarcely observes fidelity to the the original text. But, Chakravarti himself holds that Patanjali mentioned in'the Yuktidipikd was different from Patañjali, the celebrated authority on Yoga. We may accept the possibility of minor variations in the translation, but not a total transformation of the very nature of the text. The Yogasutra is in the form of aphorisms, but the Book of Patañjali, as referred to by Al-Birūnf, is not presented in aphorisms. Moreover, according to Al-Biruni, the Book was in the form of conversation between the pupil and his master; the pupil asks questions'about philosophical issues and the master expounds the principles to him.8: Al-Bifuni records9 that the Book referred to certain tales, of Nandikesvara being transferred into paradise in 6. Vol. II, p. 233, (Yogasutra II.27 - seven kinds of enlightonment); II, p. 287 (Yogasūtra IV.38 - liberation; ibid., III.42, 44, 45 -- facultieg of a perfect Yogin). 7. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 134. 8. I, pp. 27-9, 55-6, 81. 9. I, p. 93.

Appendix III 423

his human shape, and of Indra being changed into a serpent for his incest. We can speculate about nature and contents of the book of Patanjali from the fact that extract from a commentary on it (Mufassar Kitäb Patañjala or Mufassar Pātañjala)10 quoted by Al- Biruni11 'are all of them not of a philosopher, but of a plainly Purānic character; treating of cosmographic subjects, the lokas, Mount Meru, the different spheres, etc/'This shows that either these topics were included in the original book of Patañjali itself or else they were additional information supplied by the commentator. There is no known commentary on the Yogasutra of this nature. In any cases, the text of the Book of Patañjali seems to have been different from Patañjali's Yogasūtra. Due importance has not been attached to the unimpeachable testimony of Al-Biruni. Al-Birunf12'clearly says that, for preparing his Indica, he translated into Arabic two books one called Samkhya and another called Patañjali (Patanjala?). He says that these two books contain most of the elements of the belief of the Hindus and adds: T hope that the preseht book will enable the reader to dispense with these two earlier ones.' Al-Bīrūni, thus, claims to have had the full text of the book, to have read it and translated it, and to have faithfully represented its views. Hence, there should be no doubt about Al-Birüni using a text ascribed to Patañjali, but different from Patanjali's Yogasūtra.

Philosophical Views in the Book of Patañjali Here we summarise the philosophical views expressed in the extracts from the book as recorded by Al-Birūni.13

10. The name of the commentator is not mentioned by Al-Birūni. Sachau suggests it to be Balabhadra (II, p. 264). But, Al-Biruni himself shows that Balabhadra havespecialised in the area of astrology and astronomy. See Vol. I, pp. 156,'305, s.u. Balabhadra. 11. I, pp. 232, 234, 236, 238, 248. 12. I, p. 8. 13. R.K. Chaube, India as Told by the Muslims, pp. 50-6 lists ten extracts. He splits our passage I into two (no. 1 and 2) and mentions our III (B) as a separate entry (no. 5). He does not take any notice of our III (C) ->

424 Retrieving Samkhya History I. The first, a long passage recording the conversation between the pupil and the master,14 says that the worshipped one, by the worship of whom blessing is obtained, 'is he who, being eternal and unique, does not for his part stand in need of any humamaction for which he might give as a recompense either a blissful repose, which is hoped and longed for, or a troubled existence, which is feared and dreaded. He is unattainable to thought, being sublime beyond all unlikeness which is abhorrent and all likeness which is sympathetic. He by his essence knows from all eternity. Knowledge, in the human sense of the term, has as its object that which was unknown before, whilst not knowing does not at any time or in any condition apply to God. He is height, absolute in the idea, not in space, for he is sublime beyond all existence in any space. He is the pure absolute good, longed for by every created being. He is the knowledge free from the defilement of forgetfulness and not knowing. As he knows he no doubt also speaks. The difference between him and the knowing sages who have spoken of their knowing is time, for they have learned in time and spoken in time, after having been not knowing and not speaking. By speech they have transferred their knowledge to others. Therefore their speaking and, acquiring knowledge take place in time. And as divine matters have no connection with time, God is knowing, speaking from eternity, It was he who spoke to Brahman, and to others of the first beings in different ways. On the one he bestowed a book; for the other he opened a door, a means of communicating with him, a third one he inspired so that he obtained by cognition what God bestowed upon

-> and IX. On p. 89 ofhis monograph, R.K. Chaube gives a quotation from Patanjali: He who enters upon the world with a virtuous character thought not liberated, after, death is not lost, but is rewarded, in the "next life.' We cannot trace the quotation in Al-Biruni's Indica. On p. 83 of Al-Biruni the account of moksa according the Samkhya has only the first half of this' sentence, and the remaining passage describes the way he is rewarded in the world. 14. I, pp. 27-9. He have not retained the format of the conversation, the question posed by the pupil, and the answer given by the Master. Instead, we have presented the view by integrating the question and the arswer.

Appendix III 425

him. His knowing is the same from all eternity, for ever and eyer. As he has never been not-knowing, he is knowing of himself, having never acquired any knowledge which he did not possess before. He speaks in the Veda which he sent down upon Brahman: Praise and celebrate him who has spoken the Veda, and was before the Veda.' To the question how can he be worshipped to whom the perception of the senses canhot attain the master says: "His name proves his existence, for where there is a report there must be something fo which it refers, and where there is'a name there must be' something which is named. He is hidden to the senses and unperceìvable by them". However, the soul perceives him, and thought comprehends his qualities. This meditation is identical with worshipping him exclusively, and by practising it uninterruptedly beatitudé is obtained. II. The second passage15 says: The soul, being on all sides tied to ignorance, which is the cause of its being fettered, is like rice in its cover. As long as it is there, it is capable of growing and ripening in the transition stages between being born and giving birth itself. But if the cover is taken off the rice, it ceases to develop in this way, and becomes stationary. The retribtition of the soul depends on the various kinds of creatures through which it wanders; upon the éxtent of life, whether it be long or short, and upon the particular kind of its happiness, be it scanty or ample. To the question about the condition of the spirit, when it has a = claim to a recompense or has committed. a crime, and is then entangled in a kind of new birth either in order to receiye bliss or to be punished, the master says; "It migrates according to what it has previously done, fluctuating between happiness and misfortune, „and alternately experiencing pain or pleasure," To the question, what happens if a man commits something which necessitates a retribution for him in a different shape from that which he has committed the thing, and if between both stages there is a great interval of time and the matter is forgotten, the

15. I, pp. 55-6.

426 Retrieving Samkhya History

master answers:'It is the nature of action to adhere to the spirit, for action is its product, whilst the body is only an instrument for it. Forgetting does not apply to spiritual matters, for they lie outside of time, with the nature of which the notions of long and short duration are necessarily connected. Action, by adhering to the spirit. Frames its nature and character into a condition similar to that one into which the soul will enter on its next migration. The soul in its purity knows this, thinks of it, and does not forget it; but the light of the soul is covered by the turbid nature of the body as long as it is connected with the body. Then the soul is like a man who remembers a thing which he once knew, but then forgot in consequence of insanity or an illness or some intoxication which overpowered his mind. Do you not observe that little children are in high spirits when people wish them a long life, and are sorry when people imprecate upon them a speedy death? And what would the one thing or the other signify to them, if they had not tasted the sweetness of life and experienced the bitterness of death in former generations through which they had been migrating to undergo the due course of retribution? III. The third extract relates to the opinion of the author of the book ofPatanjali about moksa."There are three passages with intervening information and comments. We cannot dogmatise that they are in a running order. The first extract is specifically attributed to the author of the book of Patanjali. The second extract is attributed to the Hindus, but, at its end, Al-Birunt remarks: "This is what Patañjali says about the knowledge which liberates the soul," This makes it certain that the second extract, giving the Hindu view, was also taken from Patanjali. The third extract is not in the form of an actual quotation. It gives the view of the Hindus. Immediately after this extract we have a quotation from the Gita indicating that the earlier extract refers to the view of another text, most likely the book of Patanjali, as in the case of the second extract. (A) The consideration of thought on the unity of God induces man to notice something besides that with which he is occupied. He who

16. 1.pp. 68-70.

Appendix I1I 427

wants God, wants the good for the whole creation without a single exception for any reason whatever, but he who occupies himself exclusively with his ownself, will for its benefit neither inhale, breathe, nor exhale it (svasa and prasvasa), When a man attains to this degree, his spiritual power prevails over his bodily power, and then he is gifted with the faculty of doing eight different things by which detachment is realised; for a man can only dispense with that which he is able to do, not with that which is outside his grasp. These eight things are: 1. The faculty in man of making his body so thin that it becomes invisible to the eyes. 2. The faculty of making the body so light that it is different to him whether he treads on thorns or mud or sand. 3. The faculty of making his body so big that it appears in a terrifying miraculous shape. 4. The faculty of realising every wish. 5. The faculty of knowing whatever he wishes. 6. The faculty of becoming the ruler of whatever religious community he desires. 7. That those over whom he rules are humble and obedient to him. 8. That all distances between a man and any far-away place vanish. (B) Ifa man has the faculty to perform these things, he can dispense with them, and will reach the goal by degrees, passing through several stages: 1. The knowledge of things as to their names and qualities and distinctions, which, however, does not yet afford the knowledge of definitions. 2. Such a knowledge of things as proceeds as far as the definitions by which particulars are classed under the category of universals, but regarding which a man must still practise distinction.

428 Retrieving Samkhya History

3. Thisdistinction (viveka)disappears, and man comprehends things at once as a whole, but within time, 4, This kind of knowledge is raised above time, and he who has it can dispense with names and epithets, which are only instruments of human imperfection. In this stage the intellectus and the intelligens unite with the intellectum, so as to be one and the same thing. (C) According to the Hindus, the organs of the senses have been made for acquiring knowledge, and the pleasure which they afford has been created to stimulate people to research and investigation, as the pleasure which eating and drinking afford to the taste has been created to preserve the individual by means of nourishment. So the pleasure of coitus serves to preserve the species by giving birth to new individuals. If there were not special pleasure in these two functions, man and animals would not practise them for these purposes. IV. The fourth passagel? relates to the practical path leading to moksa. The passage is not in a continuous running form. It relates to the three parts of the path of liberation. In the first part we find an actual extract from the book of Patanjali followed by paragraphs from the Visnu Dharma and the Gita. In the case of both the second and the third parts the first paragraph is not referred to as an extract from the book of Patanjali, but, in both the accounts, they are followed, as in the case of the first part, by further details from the Gita. On the analogy of the first part, we can take the first paragraphs of the second and third parts to be based on the Book of Patanjali. Hence we may reconstruct the fourth passage as follows: We divide the path of liberation into three parts: (i) The practical on (kriya-yoga), a process of hebituating the senses in a gentle way to detach themselves from the external world, and to concentrate themselves upon the internal one, so that they exclusively occupy themselves with God. This is in general the path ofhim

4. I, pp. 76-80

Appendix III 429

who does not desire anything save what is sufficient to sustain life.

(ii) The second part of the path ofliberation is renunciation (the via omissionis), based on the knowledge of the evil which exists in the changing things of creation and their vanishing shapes. In consequence the heart shuns them, the longing for them ceases, and a man is raised above the three primary forces which are the canse of actions and of their diversity. For he who accurately understands the affairs of the world knows that the good ones among them are evil in reality, and that the bliss which they afford changes in the course of recompense into pains. Therefore he avoids everything which might aggravate his condition of being entangled in the world, and which might result in making him stay in the world for a still longer period.

(iii) The third part of the path of liberation which is to be considered as instrumental to the preceding two is worship, for this purpose, that God should heep a man to obtain liberation, and design to consider him worthy of such a shape of existence in the metempsychosis in which he may effect his progress towards beatitude. V. At the end Al-Btrum1 remarks."The author (Patanjali) adds to the three parts of the path of liberation a fourth one of an illusory nature, called Rasayana, consisting of alchemistic tricks with various drugs, intended to realise things which by nature are impossible. Al-Birüni does not give the details of the views of Patanjali on Rasāyana as a path leading to moksa." In a later chapter Al-Biruni1 mentions his reference, recorded above, on the authority of Patanjali, that one of the methods leading to liberation is Rasayana.

18. 1. p. 80. 19. I. p. 189

430 Retrieving Samkhya History

VI. According to Al-Birūni this passage20 occurs in the end of the Book of Patañjali. In it the Master describes to his.pupil the nature of liberation: "If you wish, say, Liberation. is the cessation of functions of the three forces, and their returning to that home whence they had come. Or if you wish, say, It is the return ofthe soul as a knowing being into its own nature." VII. Al-Bīrūni, referring to the Book of Patañjali, says21; Speaking of a man who restrains his senses and organs of perception, as the turtle draws in its limbs when it is afraid, he says that" 'he is not fettered,, because the fetter has been loosened, and he is not liberated, because his body is still with him'. VIII. Al-Bīrūnf22 points out another passage in the same book which does not agree with the'theory of liberation as expounded above. The bodies are the snares of the souls for the purpose of acquiring recompense. He who arrives at the stage of liberation has acquired, in his actual form of existence, the recompense for all the doings of the past. Then he ceases to labour to acquire a title to a recompense in the future. He frees himself from the snare, he can dispense with the particular form of his existence, and moves in it quite freely without being ensnared by it. He has even the faculty of moving wherever he likes, and if he like, he might rise above the face of death. For'the thick, cohesive bodies cannot oppose an obstacle to his form of existence (as e.g. 'a mountain could not prevent him from passing through). How, then, could his body oppose an obstacle to his soul? IX. AI-Biruni,23 after quoting ancient Greek authors, Ammonius, Pythagoras, Socrates and Proclus, says that the Hindus hold similar views about nature. He quotes the conversation between Arjuna and Vasudeva, which would imply the Gito as the source. The next paragraph appears as an extract, clearly differentiating it from the first. At the end of the quotation Al-Biruni adds that the

20. I. p. 81. 21. I, p. 82. 22 I, pp. 8-83. 23. I, p. 87.

Appendix III 431

doctrine of Patnajali is akin to that of the Sufi. This would indicate that Al-Biruni took the second paragraph to be an extract from the work of Patanjali. This reads as follows: Brahman is the upper roots of this tree, its trunk is the Veda, its branches are the different doctrines and schools, its leaves are the different modes of interpretation, its nourishment comes from the three forces, the tree becomes strong and compact through the senses. The intelligent being has no other keen desire but that of felling this tree, i.e., abstaining from the world and its vanities. When he has succeeded in felling it, he wishes to settle in the place where it has grown, a place in which there is no returning in a further stage of metempsychosis. When he obtains this, heleaves behind himself all the pains of heat and cold, and coming from the light of sun and moon and common fires, he attains to the divine lights. Thus the main thrust of the philosophical ideas of Patanjali, as underlined by the extracts given by Al-Biruni,24 includes the following topics: the nature of God to be worshipped and the difference between him and the knowing sages; soul and its transmigration through its acts; the eightspiritual powers (asta-siddhis)four stages ofknowledge to be acquired; organ of senses; three paths of liberation: kriyā-yoga, jñāna-yoga and bhakti-yoga, with rasāyana as the fourth; nature of liberation (moksa) and the liberated man, and the Brahman.

Comparison with Yogasūtra In the extracts there are certain views, which have their parallels in the Yogasütra. These relate to the idea of soul, the idea of metempsychosis, the eight siddhis, the four stages of meditation, and liberation.25 These similarities show that the Book used by Al- Birüni was a genuine work of Yoga. '

24. S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 233-6 is the only scholar to study these extracts but strangely is apologetic in referring to it and increasing the confusion. 25. S.N Dasgupta, op. cit., p. 234.

432 Retrieving Samkhya History There is no similarity in the expression and presentation of the two texts, indicating that Al-Birūni did not use the Yogasūtra for his account. By way of difference in the two texts, S.N. Dasgupta28 refers to certain important points in the Yogasutra which are either absent or totally minimised. These are: The importance of yama and niyama, the value of Yoga discipline as a separate means of salvation, and the significance of Yoga as control of mental states (cittavrttinirodha), These are, no doubt, important points in the Yoga system expounded in the Yogasutra. But, it can always be argued that the negative argument is not conclusive, because Al- Biruni is not expected to give an account of the whole text or a faithful summary of its contents. It cannot be ruled out that he failed to appreciate the significance of some vital points. The real difference is in the change in the emphasis and the introduction of new points. Thus, the conception of God in the Book has been made so important that He is the only object of meditation and absorption in Him is the goal. Second, liberation and Yoga are defined as absorption in God. More importantly, the Book introduces the concept of Brahman as an asvattha tree with roots upwards and branches below (ūrddhvamūla avak sakha) following the Upanisadic trådition. Another very significant difference is the introduction of rasāyand as a means of salvation.

Book of Patañjali an Independent Text Itis, thus, clear that the Book of Patanjali used by Al-Biruni was an independenttext.S.N. Dasgupta2 describes it as'a new modification of the Yoga doctrine on the basis of Patanjali's Yogasutra in the direction of Vedanta and Tantra', as 'the transition link through which the Yoga doctrine of the sutras entered into a new channel in such a way that it could be easily assimilated from there by later developments of Vedanta, Tantra and Saiva doctrines'. Thus, according to Dasgupta, the Book represents modification of Yoga to bring it nearer to Vedanta and Tantra.

26. Op. cit., p. 235. 27. Op. cit., p. 253.

Appendix III 433

But, no available text represents Yoga in the manner the Book does. There is a text named Paramarthasara, which is attributed to Patañjali.29 There are, however, no similarities between the Paramarthasara and the Book in terms of the contents and the structure. P. Chakravarti29 refers to a manuscript of a text entitled Yogadarpana attributed to Patañjali. It is mentioned in Rai Bahadur Hiralal's Catalogue of Sanskrit & Prakrt Manuscripts in the Central Provinces and Berar.30 The details of the text and its contents are not known, hence nothing definite can be pronounced about its identification with the Book. It is to be admitted that the text used by Patanjali cannot be traced. S.N. Dasgupta31 places the composition of this text within the first 300 to 400 years of the Christian era'. On the basis of the reference to rasayana as a means of salvation, he places.its author after Nagarjuna. He, identifies him with the author of the Patañjalatantra 'who has been quoted by Sivadāsa in connection with alchemical matters and spoken of by Nāgesa as 'Carake Patañjalih'.32 Al-Bīrūnī seems to be confused when he attributed to Patañjali, the author of the Book, a reference to rasāyana as a means of salvation. Al-Biruni, when he quotes Patanjali about the way for the achievement of salvation, very clearly mentions three paths. It was a later addition on the part of Al-Birūni to mention alchemy as the fourth path. This did not occur in the Book. The references to Patañjali in medical texts created a confusion in the mind of Al-Birūni and he attributed to Patañjali, the author of the Yoga text, an advocay of rasāyana.,

28. U.V. Shastri, Sāmkyadarsana kđ itihāsa, p. 622. 29. Op. cit., p. 134. 30. Nagpur, 1926. No. 4432. 31. Op. cit., p, 236. 32. Op. cit., p. 235.

434 Retrieving Sämkhya History Tradition about Patanjali as an Author on Yoga Dasagupta further argues that in the tradition identifying Patañjali, the author of the Mahabhasya, with Patañjali, the authority on Yoga, the latter is to be equated with Patañjali quoted by Al-Birūni. In his support he refers to the testimony of Bhoja and Cakrapni. Bhoja, in his commentary on the Yogasutra,33 suggests that out of the three works connected with Patañjali one was a text on Yoga dealing with cetas. Cakrapāni, in his commentary on the Caraka- samhita, refers, among the three writing of Patanjali, to one work, apparently on Yoga, dealing with manas.34 Leaving aside the much debated question of the identification of the three (or two) persons referred to in the tradition as pointing to one and the same Patañjali, we confine ourselves to the author on Yoga. Dasguptą seems to argue that as the reference does not mean the author of the Yogasütra, it may suggest Patanjali as quotéd by Al-Birūni. In the references there is nothing which may favour either of the two possibilities; both are guesses of equal merit. Hence, we cannot be sure that Patañjali of these references is Patañjali mentioned by Al- Birūnī.35 Thus, we cannot adduce any conclusive evidence for fixing precisely the date of Patañjali's text quoted,by Al-Birūni. We are sure only that by the time of Al-Biruni (and possibly of Bhoja and Cakrapāņi) it was recognised as a famous work. It is to. be placed long after the composition of the Yogasutra. There is no evidence to narrow this wide time-bracket.

33 Bhojaurtti, verse 5. 34 U.V. Shastri, op. cit., p. 621. 35. Both Bhoja and Cakrapani use the expression Patañjala. In Al-Birūni also the name of the Book is mentioned as Book of Patanjali, Book of Patanjala or Patanjala. It seems that the text mentioned by Bhoja, Cakrapani and Al-Biruni was commonly known as Patanjala and hence is to be distinguished from Patanjali's Yogasutra. But, not much weight can be given to this argument inasmuch as the Yogasūtra is also often referred to as Patañjala.

Appendix III 435

Patanjali's Text Mentioned in Krsnacarita The three introductory verses in the Krsnacarita, attributed to king Samudragupta, speak of three scholarly compositions by the foremost sage Patanjali.36 The third verse mentions a text named Yogadarsana composed by him,37 which is described as a poem full of the highest bliss, mervellous, expounding the Yoga, and destroyer of the blemishes of the mind. The verse clearly refers to the title of the text as Yogadarsana.38 R.S. Bhattacharya39 is very sure that this refers to the Yogasūtra of Patañjali. He explains kāvya as an adjective menaing varanīya, attraçtive, graceful, charming, and amends mahānandamaya as mahayogamaya (dealing with mahāyoga, the highest form of Yoga). But, there is no need for this learned exercise against the natural and obvious meaning of the verse. The title of the composition is clearly given as the Yogadarsana. It is said to be in verses (kāvya). It is described as a marvellous text (adbhuta), which is full of the highest bliss (mahanandamaya). It is in the nature of explanation of yoga (yogavyākhyānabhūta) and destroys the blemishes of citta. The reference to the text as a poem which gives highest nanda implies its literary pleasures also, besides the philosophical happiness. The expression vyākhyāna, meaning special exposition or explanation, will not have a happy application to the cryptic sūtras in the Yogasūtra. Bhattacharya does not accept the unequivocal reference to a poetical composition on Yoga by Patañjali on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the existence of such a work: This argument proceeds in the reverse order. The logical course is to accept the testimony of the Krsnacarita about a poetical work on Yogaby Patanjali and then to admit that no such work is now available.

36. U.V, Shastri, op. cit., p. 617; R.S. Bhattacharya, An Introduction to the Yogasūtra, pp. 79-81. 37. mahānandamayam kāryam yogadarsanamadbhutam 1 yogavyakhyanabhütam tad racitar cittadoşaham 11 38. Y. Mimamsaka, Samskrta vyākaraņa sāstra kā itihāsa, I, p. 334; II. p. 380 takes the name to mahananda or mahānandamaya explaining yogadarsana to mean dealing with supernormal powers (siddhis). 39. Op. cit.

436 Retrieving Samkhya History We hazard the guess that possible the text was the one used by Al-Birūni as the Book of Patañjali for presenting the Yoga system. The suggestion is conditioned by a few limitations. Al- Birūni does not directly refer to the form of the text, nor does he give a summary of its total structure. The translation, howsoever carefully done, canhot give a true idea of the literary merit of the original. But, it is to be noted that, as different from a general philosophical text, it contained Puranic stories also. Parallel to the adjective adbhuta we find Al-Biruni referring to his text as a very famous work. The detailed exposition ofthe philosophical points through conversation and discussion will be happily covered by the expression vyakhyāna used in the Krsnacarita. The translation from Sanskrit into Arabic and then from Arabic into English do not provide scope for the literary merit of the original to surface. Even within this limitation, one can visualise that its style of presentation was effective' and gripping.

Date of The New Text The form and style of the new text were different from those of philosophical sūtras, samhitas, bhasyas and vrttis. We find interesting similarities with the chapters expounding philosophical ideas, specially Samkhya and Yoga principles, in the Moksa- dharmaparva of the Santiparva of the Mahabharata. The latter appear in the form of a dialogue between a person asking questions about philosophical points and a teacher (äcarya) expounding the principles. In many cases they are introduced as ancient narratives (itihasam puratanam) and sometimes contain earlier events and stories to illustrate or explain a point. The presentation is in verses. The style is impressive; it takes recourse to similes and analogies. Some of the verses have a literary quality and can be a credit to any poet and his poetry. The original text used by Al-Birūni seems to have been characterised by all those qualities which mark the philosophical poetry preserved in the Moksadharmaparva. The above discussion provides due to determine the date of Patañjali, the author of the Yoga text drawn upon by Al-Birūni,. The high reputation of the text in the times of Samudragupta, the

Appendix III 437

author of Krsnacarita, points to a date quite sometime before the middle of the fourth century. The parallelism in form and style with the chapters in the Moksadharmaparva will suggest the time- bracket of fourth century Bc to the first century AD. Thus, we will not be erring much, if we suggest a date in the second century Bc.

Conclusion Incidently this brings this Patañjali very close to the date generally proposed for Patanjali, the author of the Mahabhasya. The identity of Patañjali, the author of the Yogasūtra, with Patañjali, the grammarian, has been keenly debated, with widely divergent views accepting or rejecting it. The question of difference in philosophical views and of the chronological gap have been raised. We do not propose to discuss the issue presently. The chronological compatibility of the two texts created the tradition that Patañjali authored books in three different fields. The long continuation of the tradition explains the prestige of Patanjali, the author of a Yoga text, in the time of Al-Birūni. Later, people, not familiar with this text, took Patañjali, the author of the Yogasūtra to be the Patanjali of the tradition. The non-availability of the text under study is a great loss to .philosophical studies of ancient India. One fervently wishes its being ferretted out from some Bhandar of manuscripts.

Appendix IV

Vyādi, the Vindhyavāsin

Yyadi as a Samkhya Teacher THE Kathāsaritsāgara1 makes a definite reference to Vyādi as a teacher (acarya) of Samkhya-Yoga. This receives support from the fact that Umbeka, in his commentary on the Šlokavarttika2 of Kumārila, attributes to Vyādi a statement that sāmānya (universality) is the same as pinda-sarūpya (similarity).A second reference to the views of Vyādi is made by Syalikanātha in his commentary on the Brhati3 of Prabhakara. According to him, Vyādi was an advocate of Vyaktivāda. But, no genuine Sämkhya text mentions the name of Vyādi. The lists of Samkhya teachers, who cover the gap between Pañcasikha and Isvarakrsna, as given by the commentaries on the Sämkhyakārika, are not knowni'to contain his name. But, it may be argued that these lists are by nomeahs exhaustive. Vyādi's name is conspicuous by its absence among the Samkhya teachers mentioned by Visvavasu in the Moksadharmaparva section of the Śantiparva in the Mahabharata and the numerous yogins enumarated in the Vāyu Purana. Possibly Vyādi díd not found a separate school of Samkhya, and the followers of other schools did not attach much value to his views. '

1. 1.2. 2. Akṛtivāda, 65. 3. I.3.33.

440 Retrieving Samkhya History His Versatile Personality The memory of Vyadi as a teacher of Samkhya-Yoga survived down to the times of Somadeva, the author of the Kathāsaritsagara, which indicates his importance. As we have seen above, in the Mimāmsā circle some of his significant views were remembered long after him. He was a versatile man and made important contributions in some other areas, besides Samkhya philosophy. He was an eminent grammarian, respected for his contributions in this field. Possibly this aspect of his personality overshadowed his work in the field of Sāmkhya. The Kathasaritsāgara emphasises the importance of Vyādi as a grammarian and lexicographer. He is said to have composed a commentary called Samgraha on the sūtras of Panini and compiled a lexicon (kosa). It is stated that he was a predecessor of Patañjali. The statements in the Kathasaritsagara receive confirmation from other sources. Kātyāyana, in his Vārttika,^refers to Vyādi. Patañjali, in his Mahabhașya,5 refers to this text, Bhartrhari, in his Vakyapadtya,8 mentions that the sarigraha was a huge text, which was impossible for ordinary grammarians to grasp. The reference to Vyādi's name in the ancient lexicons7 suggests his importance, which, to some extent, was possibly on account of his composing one of the early lexicons. Al-Birunf® records a story of a certain Vyādi; who liyed in the city of Ujjain in the time of king Vikramāditya .. He devoted his life to ,the study, of the science of rasayana and finally succeeded in preparing the.concoction, with which he made gold and flew to any place he liked. He is said to.have composed famous books on this sçience. This Vyadi is difficult to identify. The garbled tradition has difficulties about chronology. But, ifhis being credited with acquiring

4. On I.2.64 (45). 5. P. 6. 6. II.484, 488. 7. Trikāņdaseșa, II.3.24-5; Abhidhanacintāmani, III.5.6. 8. I.189-91.

......

Appendix IV 441 spiritual powers and composing books, has a semblance of the memory of the Vyadi we are' discussing, this will' be another indication of his versatile achievements.

His Views The available sources record only two specific views of Vyadi, namely vyaktivāda and the theóry ofthe equation of samanyd with sarüpya. According to P. Chakravarti,9'all the tenets and doctrines ascribed to Vyādi in the Sanskrit literature, speak'more or less of grammatical speculations and hone of them falls under the province of pure Samkhya'. He does note that Vyadi agtees with Samkhya in regard sāmanya to be nothing but sarupya, but adds that this principle 'is mainly concerned with grammatical speculation and (sic. has) very little to do with Samkhya proper'. But, this isignoring a spécific testimony to maintain one's views. It is to be realised that in, India several branches of learning, such as'grammer, poetics, philosophy and mèdicine, often taper into a common problem and a common view at a high'er level. It will be doing Indian system a wrong, if the water-tight compartmentalisation; being followed in modern times, is applied to it. The references imply that, on some points, Vyādi expressed his views with perallels.in the Sāmkhya system which were noted by followers pf an allied system, Whether Vyādi did this as a part of his grammatical work, or separately as an exposition of Samkhya, is a point which is difficult to determine and has only a scholastic yalue. r

Yyādi Identified with Vindhyavāsin Tanusukharam Sharma10 identifies Vyādi with Vindhyavāsin. His main argument is that some lexicons mention Vindhyavāsin as a synonym of Vyādi. His second argument is that Umbeka, in his commentary on the Ślokavārttika, attributes the view of sāmānya being not different from pinda-sarûpya to Vyādi at one place and

9. Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 143. 10. Matharavrtti (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series), Introduction, pp. 3-4.

442 Retrieving Samkhya History

to Vindhyavasin at another.11 He further, argues that, whereas according to Syalikanātha-Vyādi was an advocate of vyaktivāda, Kumārila12 attributes it to Vindhyavāsin. The suggestion appears to be convincing and has found many supporters. B. Bhattacharya,13 however, rejects the"proposed identification. U.V. Shastri14 and P. Chakravarti15 independently argue against the identification. Their contention- is that vindhyavasin is an appellation meaning 'one who lives in the Vindhya region', it was applied to both Vyādi and a Sāmkhya teacher, whose original name was Rudrila, U.V. Shastri explains this argument by pointing out that in the lexicons the synonym for Vyādi is not always vindhyayvāsin, but is also vindhyastha and vindhyanivasin, which shows that Vindhyavasin was not his second name. He further points out that, besides these two, teachers designated as vindhyavāsin, there was a third -person, a certain sage named Mandavya, who was also called vindhyavasin. To bring out the separate-identity of the two persons with the appellation vindhyavasin, Charkavarti points out that whereas one was a Şāmkhya teacher, the.other, namely Vyādi, was a grammarian. ^ To distingüish between Vyādi and Vindhyavasin Shastri and Chakarvarti point out the long gap of several centuries in the possible'dates of the two. Vyādi is to be'placed many 'centuries before Christ, which is too early a date for Vindhyavasin.

Joshi on Vindhyavasin I and Vindhavåsin II To reconcile the conflicting pieces of information and to circumvent the chronological inconvenience. H.S. Joshi16 says that there were two Vindhyavasins, whom he'designates as Vindhyavasin'I and Vindhyavāsin II. He identifies Vindhyavāsin l'with Vyādi and

11. Akrtivāda, 76: 12. Ślokavārtika, Akrtivāda. 13. Journal of Indian History, Vol. VI, p. 14. Sāmkhyadarsana kā itihāsa, pp. 533-5. 15. Op. cit., pp. 142-4. 16. Samkhyayoga darsana 'ka jtrnoddhāra, p. 59.

Appendix IV 443

Vindhyavasin II with Vindhyavasin, the author of the commentary Hiranyasaptati on the Samkhyakārika of Īsvarakrsna. The suggestion involves much unnecessary exercise. Vindhyavāsin was not a regular name of Vyadi. It is only the lexicons which point out that he had his abode in the Vindhya region. By naming him as Vindhyaväsin I we will only introduce an element of confusion in otherwise simple and clear evidence. The philosophical views, quoted under the name of Vindhyavāsin, are all to be attributed to one and the same person.

His Date

The only clue to the date of Vyadi is found in the Kathāsaritsāgara: Here Vyādi is mentioned as a contemporary on Nanda, to have written a commentary on the sutras of Panini and to have been a predecessor of Patañjali. His chronological position in the history of grammatical literature, confirmed by references in the Vārttika and the Mahabhasya, suggests that he belonged to a period later than Pāņini but earlier than Patañjali and Kātyāyana. By Nanda, the Kathasaritsagara evidently means a king ofthe Nanda dynasty, which is generally assigned to the date c. 362-322 Bc. Thus, Vyadi may be placed in the middle of the fourth century BC.

Conclusion

In the Kathasaritsagara Vyādi is referred to as a disciple of bhagavan Varşa. On this basis Vyadi is to be placed in the school of the followers of Vārşagaņya. Vindhyavāsin, the famous Sāmkhya teacher, is known to have been a prominent follower of the school of Vārsaganya. It may be hazarded that the attribution of the same views to both Vyadi and Vindhyavāsin and the reference to Vyādi having his abode in the Vindhya region indicate the Vārsaganya affiliation of Vyādi.

Appendix V

An Early Buddhist Account of Samkhya -

Introduction

H.D. SANKALIA is one of the very. few scholars to take note of the account of Samkhya philosophy given by Hsuan Tsang along with his own objections against some central points in Samkhya. This is an important piece of evidence for the history of Sämkhya system, but strangely enough no standard study of the Samkhya philosophy refers to it.

Hsuan Tsang and His Soures The renowned Chinese traveller and scholar enjoys a place of importance in the annals of Indian history. His account of India and his life and works are considered to be reliable sources for the study not only of Buddhism but also for social and religious history of India in general. Hsuan Tsang visited India during the reign of king Harsavardhana. He was born in AD 600 in Chin Lin in the Honan province. Ordained as a Buddhist monk in AD 622, he left, for India in AD 629. He reached Kashmir in AD 631. He visited seyeral places, staying at some for months and years. He started on his return *. journey in'AD 643 and reached his country in AD 645.1 The accounts of Hsuan Tsang's travel to India and thenarrative of the places visited by him are available in the form of three books.

. The University of Nalanda, Madras, 1934, pp. 194-7.

446 Retrieving Samkhya History

The Si-Yu-Ki" was written by Hsuan Tsang himself. P.C. Bagchi has translated the Sha-Kia-fang-che, which records the description as its author had heard from Hsuan Tsang. It is useful inasmuch as it, at places, supplements the information in the Si-Yu-Ki. But, both these texts do not contain much biographical details about Hsuan Tsang. For this we have to turn to the third text The Life of Hiuen Tsiang by the Shaman Hwui-li as translated by S. Beal.' The Life is only the first part of a fuller Chinese work "History of the Master of the Law of the three Pitakas of the "Great Loving Kindness Temple" in ten chapters. The first five chapters were written by Hui-li. Hui-li was one of the disciples of Hsuan Tsang. He had received much of his information from Hsuan Tsang himself. The biography written by Hui-li covered Hsuan Tsang's life up to his Indian travels. Hui-li wrote in AD 648-649. After his death, in AD 670 or a little later, the account was revised, enlarged and edited by Yan-t'sung, one of the followers of Hui-li. He added an introduction and five new chapters dealing with Hsuan Tsang's life and activities after his return to China. He published the complete work in ten chapters in AD 688.5 Yen-t'sung's five chapters have not been rendered into English.

The Narrative

The relevant narrative belongs to the period of about two years of his stay at Nalanda after his return from his travels in western India but before he went to Kamarupa on the invitation of its king Kumararaja and then came to Harsavardhana and attended the Mahâmoksaparişad at Prayaga in AD 643. In this period he had two important discussions, one with Simharasmi, a Buddhist monk of Nalanda, and the other with a brahmana scholar. This brahmana was a Lokatiya (Shun-si sect). He came to

2, Si-Yu-Ki, Buddhist Recrds of the Western World, London, 1884. 3. Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, 1959. 4. London, 1884. New edn, 1911. Enlarged Indian edn. Delhi, 1972 5. Julian, Histoire de la vie de Hiouenthsang et de ses voyagesI'dans Inde, Paris, 1853, Preface, p. Ixxix

Appendix V 447

dispute with the Nalanda. He challenged them by hanging forty theses at the Temple gate. When for several days there was no response. Hsuan Tsang asked an attendant in his quarters to pull down the document, to tear it in pieces, and trample it under foot. The brahmana had heard of the fame of Hsuan Tsang and did not dare to go into dispute with him. Hsuan Tsang asked him to come and discuss the points. He debated with the brahmana in the presence of Silabhadra and with all the priests as witnesses. Hsuan Tsang criticised the practices and way of life of the heretical sects of the Bhutas, Nirgranthas, Kapalikas and the Jutikas or the Chingkias (Chudinkas). The philosophical schools whose views are actually mentioned are the Samkhyas (Samkhyas) and the Vaisesikas. But, he rebuts in detail only the principles of the Samkhya Sastra. The Brahmana, unable to reply, was silent. In terms ofhis anouncement before the debate, he volunteered to offer his head to his victor. Hsuan Tsang spared his life and bade him act as his servant and follow his directions. Later he liberated the Brähmana, who, filled with joy, went to Kamarupa and told king Kumārarāja about Hsuan Tsang.

Account of Sāmkhya as Pūrva-pakșa

The account of the Samkhya philosophy presented by Hsuan Tsang, evidently as pürva-paksa in the debate, reads as follows:

As to the heretics called Samkhyas(sho-lun), they establish twenty-five principles; from prakrti or mula-prakrti, proceeds ahamkara; from this proceed the five subtle particles (called tanmatra); from these the eleven" organs (of sense and action). These twenty-four all minister to and cherish the soul (atman), which accepting and using the help thus given, excludes and removes itself. This being done, then the 'soul' remains pure and uncontaminated.

6 The passage reproduced by Sankalia by mistake reads 'seven' in place of 'eleven' which creates confusion

448 Retrieving Samkhya History

Criticism of Samkhya by Hsuan Tsang The criticism which Hsuan Tsang advanced against the Samkhya system occupies more space. But now, to rebut the principles of the Samkhya-Sastra; you say that in the presence of your twenty-five principles, the character of'soul'is distinct and diverse, but by intermingling with the other twenty-four it becomes substantially and intimately one. And you say that nature (prakrti) is hypostatised7 by union with the three gunas of sattva, rajas and tdmas and by intermingling of these three there is perfected the mahat and the other twenty-three principles,thus you affirm that these twenty-three principles are perfected by the three gunas. But if you constrain your mahat and the others, to lay hold of the three, and so to become perfect, as in the case of a crowd or a forest and without this intermingling they are false, how then do you say that 'all things are true'(substantially true)? .. Again, mahat and the rest, being each perfected by the 'three, then each one so perfected is the same as the whole, but if each is the same as the whole, then the office of each ought to be the same, and then, where is the force of the three forming the substence of all? Again, if one is the same as all, then the mouth and the eye functions, and so on, are the same as the functions of nature. Again, if each function discharges the duties of all, then the mouth and the ear, and so on, ought to smell perfumes and see colours; for if not, what is the meaning of the assertion that the three gunas make one common substance. How can any sensible man formulate such principles? But again, prakrti and ätman, both being eternal, ought to be in their hypostases identical; how, then can one; in distinciton from the other, by intermingling, produce mahat, and so on? 7. Here the passage quoted by Sankalia mistakingly reads hypnotised' for 'hypostatised'. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, this verh is dervied from the noun 'hypostasis'which in Metaphysics stands for 'underlying substance, opposite to attributes or to what is unsubstantial'.

Appendix V 449

But again, with respect to the nature of ätmar, if it is eternal, then it is the same as prakrti - but if they are the same then what need of speaking of atman? and then the atman is not able to accept the aid of the twenty-four principles, and so there can be no possibility of establishing the different offices of 'subject' and 'objecť'.

Authenticity of the Narrative It is to be noted that Julian omits the section dealing with the debate between Hsuan Tsang and the brahmana scholar. But that does not create any doubt about the authenticity of the account. The passages, that precede the present narrative as well as those that follow, form a connected account. It does not appear from the context that the present passages have been interpolated. Julian does not record his reasons for omitting the passage. It is not unlikely that Julian could not find much sense in the Chinese version on account of his inability to find a dependable description of Samkhya philosophy and to restore technical words and expressions in that system. As we have pointed out later, S. Beal also felt serious difficulty in translating the section.

Discrepencies in the Account of Samkhya Sankalia admires Hsuan Tsang for presenting 'strikingly original and unique' refutation of Samkhya and for probing the very vitals of the system'. He admits that Hsuan Tsang's' criticism of the Samkhya system, on the ground that the dtman is futile, being identical with prakrti and hence incapable of intermingling with it, 'dazzles us at first sight' But he goes on to add that 'a little examination of his objections' shows that Hsuan Tsang 'assumes to much'. Sankalia points out serious defects in Hsuan Tsang's arguments and observes that there is no reason why Hsuan Tsang's 'opponent should have been silenced and accepted defeat'. He concludes that Hsuan Tsang's refutation 'though strikingly origninal, is unconvincing'.

450 Retrieving Samkhya History MISTAKES BY THE BIOGRAPHER

Sankalia admits the possibility of'a mistake in the translation', or his biographer not being 'able to represent his master's views well'. But the second explanation is not very plausible. The present Life of Hsuan Tsang is as handed down by Yen-t'sung. He took the account of Hsuan Tsang's life as written by Hui-li and not only added details relating to the period after the death of Hsuan Tsang but also revised and enlarged the earlier account. We cannot deny the possibility of some changes creeping into the original account prepared by Hui-li. But Yen-t'sung was not far removed from the times, of Hsuan Tsang. Hsuan Tsang died in AD 670. The complete work was published by Yen-t'sung in AD 688. He possibly started the work of addition and revision in AD 670 or shortly after. Yen-t'sung was the pupil of Hui-li. Hui-li in his turn was an intimate disciple of Hsuan Tsang: Hui-li's close association with Hsuan Tsang enabled him to have facts directly from his Master. He was in a position to get his account checked and confirmed by Hsuan Tsang. Thus the chances of Hui-li's account being not faithful in recording Hsuan Tsang's observations and criticism seem to be remote.

DEFFICULTIES OF TRANSLATION We admit the possibility of the translation not being able to communicate exactly the account given by Hsuan Tsang and the criticism extended by him. Translation by itself is a difficult task. Every language has its own specialities, The terms and words in one language have their special connotation in the social and cultural ethos of the people using the language. Another language cannot easily provide exact parallels for the expressions in one language. The difficulty becomes still more pronounced when we deal with philosophical ideas. In the present case the terms in the Samkhya system have a specialised meaning. We cannot be sure whether Hsuan Tsang communicated appropriate Chinese equivalents for Samkhya terminology. The peculiar nature of the Chinese script creates serious difficulties for a modern English translator, particularly on account of the changes in pronunciation and the uncertainty about the English word being able to capture the exact

Appendix V 451

meaning of the original Sanskrit term out of its many variant possibilities, especially when the intermediary Chinese expression is also susceptible,to various shades of similar but not identical connotation. S. Beal himself admits that in translating the account of the Samkhya system the difficulty has been very great.8 He depended on the Chinese version of the Samkhyakārika and consulted Colebrooke's account of Samkhya.9 Beal very candidly records: "I offer my translation as tentative only."1ºTo illustrate, we may point out that in the account of Samkhya the twenty-fifth principle is translated by Beal as 'soul' for which he restores the original term as ätman. Later on he added the expression 'personal existence' in the footnote to be nearer to the Chinese rendering. We know that the term generally used by Samkhya in this context is purusa. We cannot fix the responsibility for introducing this confusion on Hsuan Tsang, Hui-li, Yen-t'sung or Beal. In Hsuan Tsang's rebuttal of the Samkhya doctrine Beal, at many places, uses the word 'perfect', both as verb and adjective. The word does not seem to be used in its common, general sense. Here it signifies 'completed' or 'made up of. The choice of this particular expresion by Beal was possibly dictated by the actual Chinese expression used in the original. Whether the mistake was introduced by one ofthe three Chinese writers, on account of employing a term which was not very appropriate, or Beal selected an inappropriate English word by picking one out of the many possible shades of meaning of the Chinese term, cannot be determind. But, this creates confusion about the precise criticism advanced by Hsuan Tsang. We cannot rule out the possibilitiy of similar mistakes in some other passages and expressions.

FORMULTION BY HSUAN TSANG HIMSELF Hsuan Tsang does not mention the source from which he derived his account of the Samkhya system. The context of the philosophical debate between the brahmana scholar and Hsuan Tsang will not 8. Op.cit., p. 162, fn. 2. 9. Miscellaneous Essays. 10. Loc. cit., p. 164; fn. 1.

452 Retrieving Samkhya History require a reference to the original Samkhya text. Actually, among the known early accounts of Samkhya there is none which can be said to be totally reflected in Hsuan Tsang's account. It seems that Hsuan Tsang himself formulated the present summarised account of Sämkhya. He does not attempt a complete and exhaustive statement of all the important aspects of Sāmkhya philosophy. He mentions only three important points - the twenty- five principles, the evolution of principles from prakrti, and the nature ofatman. It is clear from the objections raised by Hsuan Tsang that there were other important points in the Samkhya system which he did not include in his summarised version, One such point concerns the three gunas and their relations with the prakrti and the other principles. The original, on which Hsuan Tsang relied, most likely referred also to the characteristics of purusa and prakrti.

ACCOUNT REPRESENTS SAMKHYA DEVELOPMENTS IN A PARTICULAR PERIOD The account of the Samkhya system and its refutation by Hsuan Tsang contains a serious discrepancy. If the briginal Chinese account by Hsuan Tsang was available to the translatbr S. Beal and his translation is faithful, we will have to infer from the,conflicting and inconsistent statements about the number of principles that Hsuan Tsang is confused and confusing. The account of Samkhya mentions twenty-five principles. From praktti to the eleven organs we have twenty-four principles and dtman becomes the twenty- fifth. In the criticism in the opening sentence atman is mentioned first as the twenty-sixth principle and then as the twenty-fifth.11 In

11. S. Beal, op.cit., p. 163 -" ... in the presence of your twenty-five principles, the character of soul is distinct and diverse, but by intermingling with the other twenty-four it becomes substantially and intimately one". One possible explanation can be that when Hsuan Tsang speaks of 'in the presence of your twenty-five principles' he possibly wants to mean 'out of the twenty-five principles (including the dtman). Likewise, we will have to explain the expressions 'the mahat and other twenty-three principles' occurring later on to me 'mahat and other twenty-three principles totalling twenty-three'.

Appendix V 453

the following sentence we have a reference first to the prakrti and than to mahat and the other twenty-three principles,12 which will make:ātman the twenty-sixth principle: There are, no doubt, varying accounts about the number. of principles recognised in Samkhya. But the present account does not show that Hsuan Tsang is referring to this state of affairs in the Samkhya tradition. It is an obvious case of confusion in calculating and recording the number. It may be argued that Hsang Tsang represents the Samkhya philosophy of his times and that certain aspects of Samkhya, which are not mentioned by him, had not been evolved by that time. This type of explanation has been offered by some scholars for the nature of Samkhya in some early texts. Samkhya is one of the oldest philosophical systems in India. Its early history is abscure and we do not have authentic accounts ofSamkhya belonging to the period before Isvarakrana. We have indications that even in the Samkhya circles there was a multiplicity of opinions on several important points. It is now admitted that the Samkhya'philosophy has changed and grown in course of time. Hence scholars interpret the account of Samkhya in a particular text, for example the Upanişads, Mahabhārata, Buddhacarita and Caraka-samhitā, as either reflecting a particular stage in the evolution of the Sämkhya system or recording the views circulating in one of the many schools in Sāmkhya. But this explanation does not hold good in the present case. In the case of some earlier texts, we need not always take the account to describe the whole of the Samkhya philosophy. These texts possibly gave only those details of Samkhya which they considered to berelevant to their context. If a particular point or detail does not occur in any earlier text, it does not necessarily mean that it did not exist at that time. The explanation that Hsuan Tsang's version reflects Samkhya at a particular stage ofits evolution or a school of Sämkhya will not be valid. After Isvarakrsna standardised the Sämkhya system there was little scope for multiplicity of opinions

12. S. Beal, op. cit., p. 163, but the immediately following clause refers only to 'these twenty-three principles'.

454 Retrieving Samkhya History

on the same point to persist or for new developments and changes to be introduced. Samkhya is not known to have changed or grown for several long centuries after it was standardised by Isvarakrsna. Hsuan Tsang has to be placed much later than Isvarakrsna. If Hsuan Tsang's account reveals any major variation from the classical Samkhya, it cannot be explained in any manner other than its being a deliberate omission or a mistake on the part of Hsuan Tsang.

Hsuan Tsang Studies Samkhya in India Hsuan Tsang acquired a deep knowledge of the Samkhya system in India. A commentary on the Samkhyakarika had been translated into Chinese before Hsuan Tsang's time. This was done by Paramartha from AD 557 to 569.1ª We do not know the extent to which it had gained circulation in China and whether Hsuan Tsang had access to it. As Chinese monks, with a mastery of Sanskrit and a thorough knowledge of philosophy, were scarce before Hsuan Tsang's time, it is difficult to believe that he could acquire a knowledge of the Samkhya principles before leaving for India. As a child brought up in the Confucian tradition, at the age of thirteen he went to live with his brother Chang-tsi, a Buddhist teacher at Ising-tu convent in Loyang. Hsuan Tsang was selected as a Buddhist monk. In search of peaceful conditions he went to different places in China. Finally he reached Ch'eng-tu in the south-west. Hsuan Tsang had some knowledge of even non-Buddhist literature." He

13. Kuei-chi ascribes the commentary to Vasubandhu. See J. Takakusu, "La Samkhya Karika", BEFEO Tome IV, 1905, Introduction, p. 38. B.G. Tilak, Sanskrit Research, Vol 1, No, 2, p 108 had taken it to be the commentary by Gaudapada. S K. Balvalkar regards the Matharaurtti to be the original of the Chinese translation. The view has been controverted by A.B. Keith, A History of Sanskrit Literalure, p. 488, but has been forcefully supported by U.V. Shastri, Samkhya- darsana kd itihasa, pp. 546-66. N. Ayyaswomi Sastri, Suvarna- saptatisastra, Introduction, p. 42, considers another ancient, now lost Matharabhasya to have served as the basis, P. Chakravarti, Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 160 resolves the controversy by describing both the Chinese commentary and the Matharaurtti as 'indebted to a common suurce', 14. S. Beal, Life, p. 7.

Appendis V 455

was ordained as a monk in AD 622 In AD 629 he started on his journey to India. From the account of Hsuan Tsang's travels in India and the scholars with whom he studied it appears that he had not acquired any fair knowledge of Samkhya in China. He learnt Samkhya from Indian teachers in India. Among the subjecta studied at Nalanda Samkhya oceupied an important place.15 Hsuan Tsang remained first and last for two years' with Jayasena, a profound Buddhist scholar living on the hill called Hastivana. Jayasena is described as 'the admiration of the period'. He had made a deep study of the Yogasastra. He 'completely mastered' both from 'beginning to end' all the numerous works of non-Buddhist scholars, 'exhausted these inquiries root (leaf) and branch' and'studied all of them both within and without'.16 It seems that Samkhya was one of the subjects over which he acquired mastery.17

Hsuan Tsang's Interest in Samkhya It seems that in his controversy with the eminent Buddhist monk Simharaśmi the question uppermost in the mind of Hsuan Tsang was to rebut the Samkhya stand. Simharasmi had rearranged the Pranyamulasāstra and the Satasastra with the object 'to refute the principles of the Yoga'. Hsuan Tsang opposed the Pranyamula and Satasastra and approved of the Yoga. According to him, the founders

15 S Beal, Life, p. 112 16 Ibid., pp. 153-4. 17 The translation mentions "the medicinal art, magic and arithmetuc" In an earlier context (loc. cit., p. 112) the list of non-Buddhist subjects studied at Nalanda names "the Cikitsauidyd, the works on Magic (Atharvaveda), the Samkhya". The three names in the two lists are parallel. Whereas in the earlier list the translator has been able to restore the original Sanskrit names, in the suhsequent list he was led astray by the literal meaning of the Chinese terms. Samkhya is derived from samkhyd meaning number, It is quite likely that the Chinese translator in his effort to remin eloser to the original term Samkhya used a term referring to which has been translated by Beal into arithmetic.

456 Retrieving Samkhya History of these doctrines followed one thought, and were not mutually at variance, or opposed. Hsuan Tsang's biographer records: Hiuen-Tsiang aimed by the assertions of the Pranyamūla and Satasatra simply to overthrow the conclusions of the Sāmkhya .. Itis pertinent to enquire why Hsuan Tsang gives so much importance to Samkhya and the refutation of its principles. Samkhya, no doubt, occupies an important place among the ancient philosophical systems. It is one of the earliest systems and enjoyed a high respectability. Scholars hold widely divergent views about the relationship between Buddhism and Samkhya. Some trace Buddhist influence on the origins of Samkhya/ But some others believe that Samkhya is older than the birth of Buddhism. Some scholars identify Samkhya as one of the factors which contributed to the origin of Buddhism. There is a general tendency to trace both Samkhya and Buddhism to the same non-Vedic source, often designated as Sramana tradition. Samkhya is not named in any of the early Buddhist texts. But some scholars identify some of the philosophical ideas mentioned in the Buddhist canonical literature as being Sāmkhya. A tradition iņ Buddhist circle, persisting up to the times of Asvaghosa, mentions Samkhya principles among the teachings which the Buddha is said to have learnt from Arāda a teacher before he actually received enlightenment; but, it does not admit that Arada belonged to the Samkhya school or that he taught Samkhya principles., Whether such a tradition arose in later times in view of the popularity and prestige of Sämkhya or it was an honest tradition continuing from the early days of Buddhism'cannot-be decided. ^w & T'here is a long history of doctrinal debates between-Samkhya philosophers' and Buddhist scholars. Paramartha in his Life of Vasubandhu (Vasubandhucarita) available in its Chinese translation records that Vindhyavasa, who had revised the doctrine of his teacher, defeated Buddhamitra, the teacher of Vasubandhu, in 'a debate. Vasubandhu came from Purusapura to challange Vindhyavasa for a further debate. But he found the heretic adversary

Appendix V 457

dead in the mountain. To refute the revised work of Vindhyavāsa Vasubandhu composed Paramārthasaptati in seventy verses.18 A similar account of a debate between a Buddhist and a Sāmkhya teacher is recorded by Kuei-chi, a pupil of Hsuan Tsang. He is silent sbout the names of the two. According to him, the Samkhya teacher revised the Samkhya doctrine and presented it in his composition "Gold Seventy"in seventy couplets. In opposition tothis Vasubandhu composed the treatise entitled Paramarthasaptati.19 Wehave shown that the two accounts do not refer to one and the same debate and have discussed the identification of the Samkhya teacher and the Buddhist scholar, the texts written by them and the period to which they belonged.20

Hsuan Tsang's Critical Arguments One must admire the intellectual keenness of Hsuan Tsang. He understands the essentials ofthe Samkhya philosophy and presents them very succinctly. His criticism reveals a yery sharp brain. He makes a frontal attack on the fundamental points in the Sāmkhya system. His arguments are so original and persuasive that, they seem to brook no opposition. The first point, which they establish, is that the dualism of prakrti and atman has no logical basis. The criticism of the evolution of twenty-three principles from prakrti and of the differentiation between various created beings on the basis of the theory of three gunas is incisively scathing; I But a closer scrutiny of the arguments advanced by Hsuan Tsang shows that they are not convincing and definitive. Hsuan Tsang has a very subtle way ofbuilding up his argument against Sämkhya. To the original position of Sāmkhya he adds in innocent looking auxiliary statement. From this he derives an inference which is clearly not maintainable.'Thus, he ridicules Samkhya as maintaining an illogical position. The auxiliary point,

'18. Takakusu, Toung Pao, July, 1904. 19. Takakusu, "La Sāmkhya-kārikā", Introduction, pp. 38-40. 20. See supra chapter 18.

458 Retrieving Samkhya History so ceverly introduced by Hsuan Tsang; has no authenticity for the Sāmkhya. No authoritative Samnkhya text adopts this position. Hsuan Tsang concentrates his criticism on three important points in Samkhya: (1) the nature of atman and its relationship with the other categories, (2) the theory of gunas, and (3) the separate identity of atman and prakrti. NATURE OF ATMAN AND ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER CATEGORIES He attributes to Sämkhya the view that the character of atman is distinct and different from other principles, but, by intermingling with other twenty-four principles, it becomes substantially and intimately one. This is oversimplifying the case2 atid, thus, presenting it as inherently self-contradictory and ridiculous. The first part of the statement is correct. The purusd is characterised as being different and divergent (viparyasa) from prakrti. Purusa is witness (sakst), solitary (kevala), indifferent(madhyastha); spectator (drstr) and 'non-agent (akartr). This character of purusa is the essential thing. It is not radically changed. Samkhya does not maintain that, as a result of the association'with prakfti, there is any fundamental change in the characfer of putusa. On the contrary Samkhya'holds that, as a result of this conjunction of purusd and prakrti, the unconsciòus (acetana) prakrti appears to be conscious (cetanavat) and the indifferent (udasina) purusa appears as if it is the agent (karta). The two retain their nature.,As a result of the conjunction the two appear to be what they are not. The object of the çonjunction of the two is clearly mentioned as being the realisation on the part of the purusa and the solitariness of the prakrti. Thus, unless it is suggested'that Hsuan Tsang possibly records the view accepted by one particular section of the Samkhya philosophers, which, on account ofthe standardised version ofthe Samkhyakarika, has not come down to us, we will have to infer that Hsuan Tsang has misrepresented the Sämkhya stand. We cannot be assertive in deciding whether Hsuan Tsang honestly. misunderstood the

21. Sāmkhyakārikā, 19-21.

Appendix V 459 Sāmkhya view or deliberately misrepresented it to expose it to redicule and criticism.

THEORY OF GUNAS The second point of criticism relates to the important role of gunas in the Samkhya philosophy. On account of its importance Hsuan Tsang gives a detailed treatment to its analysis. His criticism is that mahat and other twenty-three principles are made of the three gunas, but, if one analyses them, one does not find the gunas. This point, it must be said, has not been clearlý made out. Another point, which also has not been fully developed, is that, whereas Samkhya propounds all things to be true, mahat and other principles are false without the intermingling of the three gunas. Hsuan Tsang criticises at length the Samkhya theory of the evolution of mahat and other principles by the combination of the three gunas. He ridicules the assertion that the three gunas make one common substance. He argues that if all these twenty-four principles are made of the three gunas; they all'inust be the'same. If they all are the same, the office of all these should be the same and their functions also should be the same. In that case each one bf these should discharge the functions of all others. Then the mouth, the ear and others should also be able to smell perfumes and see colours, Clearly, here Hsuan Tsang attributes to Samkhya statements which are not known to have been made in authoritative-Samkhya texts. Thus, Samkhya does not assert that all things are true and that mahat and other twenty- three principles are false without the intermingling.of the three gunas. Likewise, it is wrong to attribute to Sāmkhya the statement that the three'gunas make one common substance. The basic defect in the, criticism is that Hsuan Tsang does not. seem to have appreciated the, true import of the theory of gunas. Dr. Sankalia22 has distinctly pointed out that Hsuan Tsang's objection "is thoroughly opposed to the chemical principles on which the Samkhya system is based". The components of a group or compound are not completely identical with it. No sihgle element in the group can be a substitute for it. The group or 'compound is formed only by a combination of the 22. Op. cit., p. 196.

460 Retrieving Samkhya History components. Here, what is important is the fact of combination.23 Ther nature of the combination depends on the ratio in which the component elements are present and on the fact as to which element dominates in the combination. Mahat and all other principles are not the same, because the three gunas are not present in them in the some ratio. They all differ from one another inasmuch as they are dominated by a particular guna and the ratio in which the three gunas mingle in them varies, Thus, though mahat and other evolutes of prakrti alike formed by a combination of the three gunas, they have, their own' peculjar. ratio.of the component guns, and have, a particular guna as the predominant one. The Samkhyakārika24 very aptly remarks that the unmanifest cause or prakrti operates in the form of the three gunas and, by combination undergoing transformation, is diversified according to the differences severally of the other gunas depending on the principal guna, as does water (salilavat). The, commentary Sāmkhyatattvakaumudī by Vācaspatimisra, explaining saliląvat, says that simple water shed by the clouds, coming into contact with various situations, is,modified as sweet,, sour, bitter, pungent or astringent, in the character of the juice of the coconut, palm, bel, kąrañja, āmalaka, wood apple, etc. SEPARATE IDENTITY OF ATMAN AND PRAKRTI An important point in Hsuan Tsang's criticism is 'based on his premise "prakrti and ätman, both being eternal, ought to be in their hypostases identical". From this he derives three points sof criticism: (1)How can'one of these, namely prakrti, in distinction from the other, produce mahat and other principles? The implication is that then the evolution of principles, mahdt and downwards, could as well have been from the tman; (2) If prakrti and ätman are the

23. 'Sankalia, loc cit., remarks "Because, if our is constituted by the five elements, it does not mean that our body is as good as and equal to every one of the elements. Only when the five elements combine that the body can be created, and Hsuan Tsang seems to have missed this point." 24. Karikās, 14-16.

Appendix V 461

same, then there is no need for mentioning ātman separately; ätman does not have any justification for existing as a separate principle; and (3) If the two are identical, then how can we maintain that there are two different offices of subject and object. How can than ätman be in a position to accept the aid of the twenty-four principles? There is a basic defect in Hsuan Tsang's criticism. He confuses between the adjectives 'eternal' and'all-pervasive'. They are neither synonymous nor identical in import. They envisage totally different criteria. Whereas 'eternal' refers to time, 'all-pervasive' refers to space. What is eternal need not be all-pervasive and what is all- pervasive need not be eternal. The one does not exclude the other. Hence the assertion that prakrti and ätman are eternal does not necessarily mean that they are coeval and identical. Actually the starting point of the criticism is not justified. The attribution to the Samkhya system the view that both prakrti and ätman are eternal has to be appreciated properly. The Sāmkhya, no doubt, regardspurusa and prakrti (or pradhana) as the two primary principles. They are not differentiated from the other principles on the ground of being eternal. The criterion is that of being evolvent or evolute. Prakrti (evolvent) is described also as mūla-prakrti (root evolvent), because it is non-evolute (avikrti). The seven principles, beginning with mahat,'are the evolutes of the evolvent (prakrti- vikrtis). The sixteen other principles are evolutes (vikāra). Purusa is placed in an altogether separate category, being neither an evolvent nor an evolute.25 The Samkhyakarika lists the distinguishing features of the vyakta (mahat and.other évolutes) and the avyakata (pradhāna or prakrti). The avyakta has characteristics quite opposite to those of the vyakta. The uyakta is described as being dependent on a cause (hetumat), non-eternal (anitya) and non-pervading (avyapi).26 The quality of being eternal is not tò be associated with both vyakta and avyakta. On the contrary, whereas vyakta is non-eternal (anitya), avyakta is eternal

25. Samkhyakdrika, 3. 26. Ibid., 10-11.

462 Retrieving Samkhya History

(nitya). Likewise, the two are not all-pervading. Whereas vyakta is non-pervading, avyakta is pervading. In kārikā 11 certain characteristics are, associate with both uyakta and pradhana (avyakta). Puruşa is reverse of both uyakta and avyakta in respect of these attributes (mentioned in kārika 11), yet it is similar to the pradhāna (or avyakta) in respect of certain other characteristics mentioned in the preceding kārika.27 On the basis of kārika 10 we may infer that.the characteristics which purusa has in common with pradhana are: being without a cause, being eternal, being pervading, being immutable, single, and independent, Thus, Sämkhya does not derive the quality of all-pervasiveness from the quality of being eternal. It ascribes tò purusa and pradhāna several characteristics which are nót necessarily connected with one another. These include the characteristics of being eternal ánd pervading. Here vyakta is described as being auyapi and hence auyakta or prdhānà as also purușa will be uyāpi .: Avyāpi means limited or finite, whereas uyapi will mean unlimited or- infinite. It is'quite likely that Hsuan Tsang does not mean to derive vydpi from nitya. He was well awere of the characteristics of purusa and pradhana or avyakta and argued that how can the two alike be uydpi; only one can be vyapi. We will have to infer that Hsuan Tsang has not been able to state his point clearly. When Hsuan Tsang criticises Samkhya for making one of the two, purusa and prakrti, 'subject' and the other 'object'. He possibly refers to the description of uyaktą and pradhāna as vişaya,28 and of purusa as reverse of this. His argument is that if the two are identical how can one be 'subject' and another be 'object'. But Samkhya clearly mentions the distinguishing features of the two. Though they have certain common characteristics, they have equally important points of differences. In any case, the reference to visaya

27, Tadviparttastatha ca puman. All the commentators agree in taking this expression to mean that purusa is reverse of both vyakta and pradhana in'respect of attributes mentioned in Rarika 11, but is similar (tatha ca) to the pradhana in respect of attributes in kārika 10. They explain ca in tath ca as having the sense of api (even yet). 28. Sāmkhyakārikā, 11.

Appendix V 463

and, its viparita shows that Hsuan Tsang had a more detailed knowledge of Samkhya than is reflected in his summarised account. 3 We have èarlier referred to the problem of identifying the original Samnkhya text used by Hsuan Tsang. It is very difficult to be sure, through the English translation of the Chinese account, about the technicål Sanskrit terms and expressions meant by him. He designates prakrti also as müla-prakrti, groups the eyolutes in a certain manner,29 and refers to the qualities of being nitya and vyāpi for prakrti and atman30 and to the distinction between the two as visaya and its opposite.31 All- this would suggest that Hsuan Tşang was relying on the Sāmkhyakārika. There are, no doubt, certain points and details which are not referred to in the Samkhyakärika. The use of the term atman for purusa is one such.

Explanation If the difficulty caused by the translation is not deemed to be a valid explanation, then we have three possible explanations: (a) Hsuan Tsang consulted some other texts as well, (b) Hsuan Tsang could not appreciate the niceties and subtleties of the Smkhya system, (c) Hsuan Tsang dehberately gave the present account. We have referred to these points in the foregoing discussion. The possibility of Hsuan Tsang not restricting his study of the Samkhya to just one text cannot be ruled out. Hsuan Tsang had an inquisitive mind and had an insatiable appetite for books. The earlier texts and accounts of Sämkhya are not expected to have been completely ousted immediately after the composition of the standardised account in the Samkhyakarika. We do not attach much weight to the explanation accusing Hsuan Tsang of inability to understand the Samkhya properly. Hsuan Tsang was a versatile scholar. He had a philosophical mind. His knowledge was not confined to his own religion. He had acquired a deep understanding of the finer points and details of philosophies. A valid explanation of the differences

29. Cf. Samkhyakārikā, 3. 30. Cf. Ibid., 10-11. 31. Cf. Ibid., 11.

464 Retrieving Samkhya History which Hsuan Tsang's version reveals from the commonly accepted description of the Sämkhya system is that the account refers to a debate between Hsuan Tsang and his brahmana antagonist. In a debate one can take the liberty of giving a twist to the case made by his opponent. This is not on account of any ignorance on the part of the debator. Nor can this be interpreted as being dishonest.

Conclusion To conclude; Hsuan Tsang offers the first critical account ofSamkhya by a non-Samkhya scholar. This speaks highly of the wide range of his interest and his versatile scholarship. His original criticism reveals the philosophical sharpness and brilliance of his mind.

Index

Abhayadevasūri, 376 Allahabad Pillar Inscription, 361 Abhidhāna-cintāmaņi, 266 Alsdorf, 411 Abhidharmakośa, 332' Amara, 34 adhyātma, 84 Amarakośa, 12, 34 adhikaraņa, 3 Amarasimha, 12 Ādi, 233 Amba, 170 Advaita Vedānta, 93 Ammonius, 430 Ādya-Sārkhya, 159 Ānanda, 196 Affinities between Upanişads and Sāmkhya, 76 Ānandagiri, 54 Anandasrama, 257-8 Agni Purāņa, 11, 285 Agniveśa, 23, 131-8, 148, 276 Anandavardhana, 11 Dhvanyāloka Agniveśa and Caraka, 134; date of, Angirā, 278 135 Agniveśa-tantra, 132, 136 Ah ignorant explanation, 40

Ahirbudhnyasamhit, 37, 192, 308, Aniruddha, 303

387 ańti-Vedic folk òrigin, 48

Ahorātra-sākhā, 279, 286 Anugitā, 83, 97

Ahoråtrayoga, 279 Anuśasana, 233

Aitareyopanişad, 65-6, 75 Anuyogadvāra Sūtra, 364, 366, 369; (lists various philosophies and Aja, 188 texts) Ajātaśatru, 70 ānvīkşikī, 30-2, 34, 108-9, 114, 120-1 ākhyāyikas, 11-13, 26 Āpadya, 186 akriyāvādins, 170 Akşapāda, 171, 278 Aparārka, 217, 226-7, 231-2, 235, 237- , 9, 241, 244, 248, 252, 258-60, 389 Alamkára-samgraha, 12 Āpastamba, 232, 259 Alara-Kalāma, 114 ,appreciation of Samkhya stand, 312 Al-Birūni, 4, 267, 271, 422-3, 426, approaches to the history of Sarhkhya, 429, 434, 436-7, 440 24-41 Indica Arāda, 22, 26, 29, 138-46, 150-1, 176,

466 Retrieving Samkhya History

182, 184-5, 284,456; chronological Aştādhyāyl, 134, 136, 266 position, 149; date of, 148-50; evaluation of his view, 145-7; his Aştangasamgraha, 137

philosopbical views, 144 Asuri, 5, 7-8, 16-18, 25, 27, 48, 56,

Arāda and not Aśvaghoșa as 121-2, 149, 153-4, 184, 198, 232,

expounder, 141 250, 277, 285, 288-9, 333, 340, 367, 372-3, 386, 398-9 Arāda and Samkhya School, 143 Puruşavidha Brāhmaņa Āraņyakas, 19, 47 Aśvaghoşa, 21-2, 97, 134, 138-45, 148- Arāț, 278 9,175-6, 184-5, 197, 284, 312, 456 arguments based on Upanigads, 61 Buddhacarita

Arjuna, 278, 430 Aśvalāyanasutta, 233, 278 Ārșānukramaņī, 320-1 Åsvamedhikaparva, 83 Ārsțișena, 278 Asvapati Kaikeya, 70, -73 Arthaśastra, 31-2, 34, 120, 197, 199 Atharvaveda, 31, 46-7, 61 Aruņi, 70-1 Atreya, 23, 128, 132-6, 138, 149, 278 āryā, 11 Åtreyādayah, 186 āryamati, 8 Atreyatantra, 134 dryā-metre, 10, 11, 384 Atri, 133-4, 278, 285 Aryans, 47 Atriputra, 133 Asanga, 332 Atri-siddhāntiya-sakha, 279, 281; 286 Asiya-Davila, 406 Atrisūnu,,133 Asita, 211-13, 278 Atryātmaja, 133 Asita-Devala, 12, 84, 88, 205-6, 211, attempts of Yajnavalkya and 214, 216, 233, 251, 278,.406-8, Vasișțha, 391-2 410; approach and style of author, 413; comparison authenticity of Devala-chapter +-'

Devaladharma-sutra; .414; with points of contact with the Devaladharmasūtra, 225 Devala section, 411; exposition of his views, 410; in Isibhāsiyai, 401 authors and philosophers of the

Asita-Devala chapter, 205; Upanișads, 70

authenticity, 225; Bala in, 221; Avassayanijjutti, 401, 403

characteristic feature; .227; Āvāțya, 149, 175, 177-8, 180, 183, comparison with Devala- 185, 278; his views, 186 dharmasutra, 216; contenta of Ayurveda, 3, 38, 130-1, 133, 135, 137- chapter, 206; difference. with 8, 281, 407 Samkhyakārika, 213; early character, 216; kāla in chapter, Ayurveda Samhitas, 134

218; nature of presentation'in Ayurvedic traditiôns, 31

Śanti-parva, 221. Asita-Devala and Devala, 210 Baddhali, 281, 337, 353

association with Vindhya, 343 Bagchi, P.C., 446

...

Index. 467

Bahudi, 17 168, 170, 237, 263, 266, 269-70, Bahulaśva, 112 274, 347-8, 381, 435; on Patañjali Bālāditya, 334, 360 as a Yoga writer, 268

Bali-sha, 287, 299, 334, 345, 348 Bhela, 133

Baņa, 11 Bhikąu Ātreya, 133 Harşacarita Bhtla-samhita, 134 Kādambarl Bhimasurukham, 366 Banerji, S.C., 237-8, 259 Bhișma, 84, 88, 103, 106, 112, 117, Barua, B.M., 18 170,196-8, 200-1, 212-13, 261, A History of Pre-Buddhist 278, 394

Philosophy Bhişma-parva, 83

Bať'-ba-li, 291, 353 Bhoja, 295, 372, 422, 434 Baudhāyana, 232, 259 Bhrgu, 71, 84, 278 Beal, S., 446, 449, 451-2 Bhujya, 70

Bedekar, V.M., 85; his account of Bhūtirāja, 157 Sämkhya, 86; on Samkhya in the Bi-ri-sha-gana, 353 Mokşadharma-parva, 86 Black Yajurveda, 259 Belvalkar, S.K:, 85, 353, 363-5 bodhisațtva, 233 Bhagavadajjuktya, 249 Book of Pațaājali, 421, 428, 430, 436; Bhagavaddatt, 111, 197 an independent text, 432-3; Bhagavad Gītā, 83, 309 comparison with Yoga-sutra, 431-

Bhāgavata Purāņa, 39-40, 47-8, 50, 2; date of new text, 436; eight

219, 281, 287 things, 427; path of liberation,

Bhāgavatas, 93 428; philosophical views in the book, 423-33 Bhamaha, 11 Kâuyālamkāra Brahmā, 107-10, 116, 178, 182, 188, 193-5, 198, 200,260, 278, 283, 285 Bhamatt, 322 Brahmaņas, 19, 44-9, 53, 59-61, 66, Bhandarkar Oriental Research 69-70, 74-5, 91-2, 100, 132, 147, Institute, 85 305 Bhāradvāja, Gardabhīvipīta, 71, 84 Brāhmaņa Upanișadic ideas, 120 Bhāradvāja, Sukeśi, 70, 84 Brahmanical sources, 233 Bharaham, 366 traditions, 47-8, 50, 55, 59, 233,

Bhārata, 148, 366 339

Bhārgava, Vaidarbhi, 70, 173, 232, . Brahmanical tradition not favourable 290-1 to Sāmkhya, 55

Bhartrhari, 440 Brāhmaņism, 93, 310 Vākyapadıya Brahma Purāņa, 284 Bhattacharya, B., 367, 442 Brahmasūtra, II, 11, 54, 187, 235, Bhattacharya, R.S., 21, 29-31, 156, 264-5

468 Retrieving Samkhya History

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, 18,52,61, Carake-Patafijalih, 433 65-6,69, 75, 105, 114-16, 122, 134 case for Arada, 143 Brhadratha (king), 112, 272 Brhadukhtha, 112 Case of Epic Samkhya, 82 Catalogue of Nanjio see Nanjio Brhaspati, 84, 231-2 Catalogue Brhati, 439 Catalogue of Sanskrit and Prakrt Buddha, 22, 61, 138, 141-2, 144, 147, Manuseripts in the Central 150, 173, 185, 196, 199, 201, 233- Province and Berar, 433 4, 251, 275, 390, 399, 415 Chakravarti, P., 3, 34, 45, 88, 99-100, Buddhacarito, 21-2,26,29,97-8, 138- 106, 109, 117-18, 123, 140, 142-3, 44, 149-50, 175-6, 182, 184, 197, 147-8, 150, 157, 177-8, 189, 202, 199, 250, 284-5, 312, 325, 453 206, 213, 217, 222, 237, 263, 264, Buddhacarita, Caraka-samhita and 271, 314, 322, 326, 351, 353-4,

Moksadharma-parva, 21 356-9,361,369,378-9,381,392-3,

Buddhaghosa, 233 422, 433, 441-2

Büddhali, 290 Chândogya Upanisad , 52, 61, 75

Buddhamitra, 333-4, 343, 348, 350, changing meaning of Samkhya, 30

355-6, 359, 361, 456 Chang-tsi, 454

Buddhism, 44, 59, 76, 141, 252, 334, Chattopadhyaya, Debiprasad, 48-9 361, 366, 393, 445; relationship Chattopadhyaya, Latika, 314-15 with Samkhya, 456 his reconciliation, 314 Buddhist literature, 216 Christian era, 22-3, 30, 135, 231, 363, Mahākåsava, 403 433 sources, 233 chronological consideration for the traditions, 255, 359, 390 identity of Patanjali, the Samkhya

Iudila, 70 Acârya and Yogasūtrakara, 274

Buitenen, see Van Buitenan Chronology of Upanisads, 75 Cikitsasthana, 132, 137

Cakrapāņi, 132, 434 Classical Samkhya 3:4, 8, 43, 62, 89-

Candrabhaga, 133 90,92,96, 104, 129, 168, 292, 302,

Candrabhāgi, 133 304-6, 309, 311-12, 370, 385, 454; two phases Candragupta, 360-1 - Pre-Karika, 3 Canonical literature, 144 - Pancadhikaraņa, 4 Caraka, 23, 95-6, 127-33, 135-8, 140, - Pataňjali, 4 143. 148-9, 270, 281, 312; two - Paurika, 4 different courses of evolution, 128 - Varsaganya, 4 Caraka-sakha, 135 - Kárika; a Caraka-samhita, 21-2, 26, 38, 87,98, - Isvarakraņa, 3 123, 130-2, 134-8, 147-8, 250, 267, 270, 288, 291-2, 308, 434, 453 - Vindhyavasin, 3

Index 469

clasaification of knowledge, 294 Brâhmanical Buddhist, Jain Colebrooke, 451 sources, 233; in history, 233; concept of purusartha, 15 Musalagaonkar's date, 231;

consideration in evaluating Epic- Samkhya views, 217,225,233;

Samkhya, 89 sytematisation by him, 389-

contribution of Isvarakrsna, 8 91; views about god, 390

critical edition on Moksadharma- Devaladharmasūtra, 20-1,26,28,217- 18, 220-1, 224, 230, 232-3, 237-8, parva, 85 242, 248, 251-4, 325, 388, 389. 407, 415-19; date of, 251; early Dadhyanc, 71 features of section, 417; in the Dahlmann, Joseph, 44, 59, 91-2, 304 history of Samkhya, 250; Dahlmann, - Epie Samkhya Post- philosophical passages, 238-45 Upanisadic and Pre-classical, 91-2 Devala-smrti, 232-3, 251 Daivarāti Janaka, 84, 101, 106, 111- Devarāta, 112-13 13, 115-17 Devatirthasvamin, 34 Daivarati Mahājanaka II - Janaka Devi, 243, 284 Vaideha, 114 Devibhâgavata Purana, 284 Dandaka, 197 Dhanvantari, 266, 268 Dandakya Bhoja, 197 dharana, 177, 179-80, 398 dandaniti, 31 dharma, 398 Dandin, 11-12 Kavyadarsa Dharmadhvaja, 196 Janaka, 199 Das, B., 136 Dharmakosa, 67 Daśaratha, 195 Dharmamegha, 36 Dasgupta, S.N., 6, 45, 60, 97, 123, 138-9,205,272-3, 308, 347, 432-4; Dharmaśāstra, 74, 176, 179-80, 251,

six main features of Samkhya, 260, 393

123 Dharmasutra, 217, 229, 232-3, 235,

Dasgupta, S.N., School of Samkhya, 237, 245, 251-5, 259, 261-2, 389 417 95-7 date of Agnivesa and Caraka, 135 Dhaumya, 212

derivation from Samkhya, 33 Dhuanyaloka, 11 difference with the Devaladharma- Devahuti, 281 sütra, 224 Devala, 115, 149, 176-81, 183-5, 211- 13,216-17,221,227,231-2, 234-5, difficulties in using Mahabharata

237, 243, 248-9, 252, 255, 259, evidence, 81

278, 280,290-1, 353, 388-90, 411, Dinnāga, 361

413-15, 418-19 diversity of exposition, 100 Dharmasutra text, 217; features Drdhabala, 23, 131-2, 137, 148 of his exposition, 245; in Drona, 36

470 Retrieving Samkhya History

Durgāspatasati, 279 Gārgya, 70, 172 Gārgya Sauryāyaņi, 70 earlier studies 'on Caraka-Samhitd Gaudapāda, 249 evidence, 123 early character ofthe Devala chapter, Gaudapādabhāșya, 326, 397

216 Gautama, 232, 278, 290

Edgerton, Franklin, 33,45, 301, 308; Dharmasūtras

on Samkhya being non-theistic, Ghodayamuham, 366-7

367 Gttd, 50, 52, 83, 97, 99, 140, 147, 182-

Ekakşara, 188 3, 211, 222, 227, 233, 279, 286,

Eliade, M., 310-11 303, 305, 308, 312, 395, 426, 428, 430; reference to standardisation, Epic Samkhya the original Samkhya, ,394 91 God, 69, 302-4, 306, 311, 315, 424, evolution of ahamkara, 296 Mokşadharma-parva evidence, 427-8, 432 Golden Egg, 107, 110 100 tattvāntara from prakrti, 298 Gold-Sevanty (Hiranyasaptati), 334, 345-6, 348-9, 351-2, 355, 357-8, evolution of the scheme of 364-6 classification, 285 Gopālatāpint Upanișad, 249 Gośāla Maskariputra, 403-4 fallacious expectations from Upanișads, 68 Govindananda, 54

features of Devala's exposition, 243 Grhyasūtras, 253

features of early Samkhya in Arada's grouping of Sarhkhya accounts, 84

exposition, 147 Grund text, 61, 87, 98, 103, 309, 394-

Filliozat, 133' 5; in Mokşądharma-parva, 393.

Fire Theory of the Upanisads, 60 Ģuņaratna, 40-1,134,347; anignorant explanation, 40 first phase of Samkhya history; 13 Guņaratanasūri, 154-6, 292, 328, 350, folk stream, 6 371-2 four pillars of scientific methods, 1 Frauwallner, E., 27-8, 30, 60, 87, 98, Hacker, P., 27,,30 103, 205, 223, 308; on schools, 288, 309-10, 325, 380-1, 393 Haribhadrąşūri, 347, 371, 403 Saddarsanasamucçaya Hārita, 133-4, 232, 257-60, 270, 290- gandharva, 108, 176, 185 1, 337; in Moksadharma-parva, Garbe, R., 6, 33, 47-8, 59, 61, 91, 139, 261-2 304, 307, 334, 345; viewà, 303 Hārita as a Samkhya teacher, 257 Garbhopanişad, 249 Smrti writer, 257, Garga, 172, 278, 290-1 Harttadharmasūtra, 250, 259-60 Gargādıgaņa, 321 extracts from, 260

Index 471

Hárlta-smrti, 258 arguments against Sāmkhya, 457; Harșacarita, 11-12 his critical arguments, 457-8; his Harşavardhana, 445-6 criticism of Sāmkhya, 448-9; his Hauer J.W., 47, 310 Samkhya philosophy, 447; his Hegelian, 72 sources, 445; interest in Sāmkhya,

Helārāja, 157, 162, 165, 167 455; mistakes by biographers, 450; narrative, 446, 449; nature of Hemacandra, 266 atman and its relationship with Hertel, 74-5 other categories, 458; separate Himsā, 398 identity of dtman and prakrti, Hiralal, 433 460-3; Särhkhya system, 452-4; Catalogue of Sanskrit and Präkrt Theory of gunas, 459-60

Manuscripts in the Central Hui-li, 446, 450-1 Provinces and Berar Hiraņyagarbha, 54, 188, 193-4, 200- Ikşvāku, 113, 194-5, 198, 278; 1, 203, 243, 278, 365 important features of Sarkhya Hiraņyākșa, 128, 220 literature, 26

Hiranyasaptati (Gold Seventy) 348, - ākhyāyika

363, 365-6, 443 - pdravāda

history of Dharmasastra, 232, 237, Indian aesthetic tradition, 3 251 Indian Philogophical Thought, 227 History of the Master of Law of Three Indian Philosophy, .68-9, 199, 216, Pitakas of the Great Loving 301 11 Kindness Temple, 446 Indian system of philosophy, 13 A History of Pre-Buddhist Philosophy, India's ancient cultural heritage, 49 18 Indica, 422-3 History of Samkhya, 231-2 Indra, 423 H-okia, 173, 291 Indradyumna, 70 Hopkins, E.W., 23, 93, 201, 206, 293; Indriyajātaka, 234 six systems emphasised by him, 93; Bhagvatas, Brahmanism, Indus Valley Civilisation, 29

Paśųpatas, Samkhya, Vedic internal and external evidence, 362 Orthodoxy, Yoga about date of Vidhyavāsin

Hopkins-Samkhya predominance in Isa, 75, 306 the Epic, 93 Isibhasiydi - An ancient Jain Text, Hsuan Tsang, 287, 333, 348, 354, 356, 401-3; 414-15; characteristics of 365, 445-6, 449-52, 456, 461-4; text, 404; early features ofsection, discrepencies in the account of . 417; rşis in the text, 404-6 Samkhya, 449; explanation,1463- Isibhdsiydim, 233-4, 251, 337-40 4, difficulties in translation, 450; Isimandala, 234, 407 formulation by himself, 451; his Iśvara, 94

472 Retrieving Samkhya History

Isvaragitā, 175-6 Jātaka literature, 114 Iśvarakrsņa, 4-18, 21, 24-8, 33, 49, Jātakas, 199 56, 62, 88-9, 96, 99, 102; 105, 138- 40, 147, 153, 155-6, 168-70, 172, Jaya, 148

184, 191, 194, 203, 214-15, 221-2, Jayamangalâ, 156, 170, 222, 255, 290, 228-9, 231-2, 235, 247, 251, 257, 320, 387-8 269, 278-9, 285, 289-94, 296, 299, Jayasena, 455 303, 306, 308, 312, 316, 319-20, Jina Parsva, 402 325, 327, 333-5, 337, 340; Jitvan Śailani, 71 importance, 4 āryamati Jivananda, 257-8

History of Samkhya Johnston, E.H., 45, 60, 87, 97-8, 139, 205, 250, 287, 308-9, 324-5; Itihāsaveda, 32 methodological pleading, 82 Joshi, H.S., 143, 172, 178, 182, 277, Jābāla, 70 281, 283-5, 344; on Vindhyavāsin" Jacobi, H., 33 I & II, 442

Jaigişavya, 12, 22, 84, 102, 140, 143, Joshi, Laxman Shastri, 67 149-50, 175-9, 181, 183-6, 198, Dharmakośa 210, 233-4, 252, 255, 278-9, 299, Julian, 449 390; date, 182; philosophical Jyeştha, 243 views, 180; reputation of Samkhya-yoga teacher, 175; Jyotirmitra, 134, 136

source, 175; work composition, 178 Dhāranasāstra Kaban'dhi, 70 Jaimini, 55, 115 Kādambarī, 11

Jain Āgama, 339 Kairāta, 290, 337

Jain Bhandar, 411 Kāla-sākhā, 279-80 Jain Canonical texts, 160, 170, 402 kali-age, 176

Jain, Sagarmal, 339 Kalpasthāna, 132, 137 Jain sources, 233; tradition, 234, 251, Kalpasūtras, 253 255, 337, 387 Ķamaļąsīla, 342, 350, 373, 377-8 Jainism, 44,-76; 403 Kaņāda, 171, 173, 278 Jain literature, 216 Kanagasattari, 364, 366-7 Jaivāli, 70 Kandkasaptatt, 28, 351-2, 357-8 Janaka; 12, 22, 84, 108, 116-7, 140, Kane, P.V., 231-2, 237, 251, 258-9 143, 149-50, 176, 184, 187, 189, History of Dharmaśastra 195, 198-9, 218, 278,320 Kangle, R.P., 34 Janaka-Śtrádhvaja, 196 Kanişka (king) 22, 135, 138 Janaka Vaideha, 113-14 Kapila, 5-8,-13-14, 16-18, 21, 25-8, 33, Janamejaya, 212 37,47-8,50,53,55-6, 84/118, 121, 149, 154, 164, 176, 183-4, 198,

... .... ..

Index 473 303, 326, 333, 340, 353, 365-7, 369, 375, 386, 398-9; his concept genuine earlier Samkhya 94-5 of purușārtha, 15; principles of Kena, 75 prakrti, 15; Purāņic statement, Kenopanişad, 75 54; two points, 386 khyāti, 36, 38-9, 42 Kapilabala, 137 Kitāb Pātañjala, 421; different from Kapila, Pacasikha Yogasatra, 421-31; philosophical Sārkhya, 30 views in the book, 423 Tantra, 30 Kodillayam, 366 Kapila Tantra, 30, 52-3 Kratu, 278 Karāla Janaka, 84, 101, 112, 187, Kratujit, 112 195-9, 201-3, 278, 284 Krana, 84, 183 Karāla-Vaideha, 197 ādhyātma Kardama, 48 Krsnacarita, 436-7 Kaśyapa, 278 Krsņa Dvaipāyania, 212 kathd, 11-12 Kranātreya, 133 Katha, 46, 60, 62, 75, 303, 305, 312 Krsna Yajurveda, 132, 135, 272 Kāțhaka, 52 Krti, 112-13 Katha Upanișad, 19, 60-2, 75, 272, Krtyakalpataru, 179, 217, 226, 228, 305-6, 309, 324 236, 241, 244, 252, 260, 389 Kathāsaritsāgara, 182, 439-40, 443 kşatriya, 47-8 Kātyāyana, 70, 231-2, 275, 440, 443 origin, 47 Vārttika tradition, 76-7 Kauņdinya, 290, 337 Kuei-chi, 287, 299-300, 333-4, 345-7. Kausalya Āśvalāyana, 70 349-50, 354-7, 365-6; his account, Kauśika, 183 348

Kauşītaki, 70 Kumāra Gaya, 278 Kauşītaki Upanişads, 52, 75 Kumaragupta I, 360-1 Kauțilya, 34, 120, 197 'Kumārarāja, 446 Arthasastra Kumārila, 258, 341, 362-3, 379, 439, 442 Kautilyam, 366 Ślokavárttika Kāvilam, 366-7, 387 Kuni; 112 Kāvyādarsa, 11 Kāvyālamkāra, 11 Kūrma Purāņa, 176-7, 183-4, 219, 280, 284 'Kāvyālamkārasūtraurtti, 360 Kuśadhvaja, 196, 199 Kāuyaśāstra, 11, 74 Kushwaha Usha; 238, 288; Sāmkhya Keith, A.B., 45, 60, 83, 91-2, 94, 139, school identified by him, 287 142, 201, 205, 305-6, 325, 334, 342, 345, 398 Kuśika, 278

474 Retrieving Samkhya History

Laghu-Harita-smrti, 257-8 Makabhaşya ;. 136, 266, 270-1, 274, Lakşmidhara, 179,217, 227; 232, 235, 337, 434, 437, 440, 443 238, 241, 259-60, 266, 389 Mahadeva, 176 Larson, G.J., 3-4, 21; 29-31, 43-4, 49, 61, 87-8, 99-100, 103,, 123, 140, Mahājanaka, 114

142-3, 149, 156, 168, 170, 237, Mahān, 188

263, 270, 313, 335,. 342, 347-8, Mahāvira, 234, 239, 339, 403-4

352, 359, 362, 366, 381; ancient Mahendra, 243 speculation, 312; critical study Mahendravikramavarman,, 249 and meaning of Sarkhya; 312; Mahesvara Şamkhya-Yoga, 284 envisages two phases, 312; proto- Sämkhya speculation, 312; view Mahidasa Aitareya, 70

on non-theistic, 313 Maitrāvāruņi, 195

Sāmkhya Maitrayaņt, 60, 62, 272

Latika Chattopadhyaya's Re- Maitrāyaņiya, 305

concialiation, 314 Maitreya, 219, 281 Lațyāyana Śrautasūtra, 321 Asanga, 332

Levi, S., 135 Maitr1, 46, 70, 75, 312

Life of Hiuen Tsiang, 446 Majjhimanikāya, 144, 196, 199, 201,

Life of Vasubandhu, 333-4, 341, 343, 233

348-9, 359, 365, 456 Mamandoor, 249.

linga-sarlra, 61 Mamķhaliputta, 403

Logāyatam, 366 Maņdavya; 344, 442

Lokāyata, 32, 34 Māndūkya, 75

lokayatam, 32 Manohara, 183 Manoratha, 356

Madhava, 4, 288-9 Manu, 84, 278 Sarvadarśanasqmgraha, 4 Manu-smrti, 52, 279, 283, 285-6, 303 Mahabharata, 12, 22-3, 36-7, 39, 44, Martci, 278. , 47-8, 50, 55-6, 61, 81-5, 87-8, 90, Mārkandeya, 278 92-6, 99, 105-6, 112-13, 115, 117, 138, 143, 147-50, 156, 170, 175-7, Mārkandeya Purāņa, 279

179, 183, 187-8, 195-9, 201, 203, Māțhara, 160, 232, 290, 367

205-6, 210-12, 215, 218-19,'221, Mațharavrtti, 7, 156, 170, 232-3, 235, 224-5, 231, 233-5, 250; 252, 261, 257-9, 290-1, 320, 326, 329, 364 272, 278, 280, 284-6, 300, 303-5, Matsya Purāņa, 274 307-10,313-14, 319,329,336,391- Mauliką Samkhya, 26, 154-6, 159, 2,394,436,439, 453; Asita Devala 292 chapter in 205; in four expounding Max Müller, 311 Samkhya principleș, 83; merit of Mahabharata evidence, 97 .Mazumdar, A.K, 311

Mahābharata War, 111-13, 197 meaning and scope of Upanisads, 64

.' ... .. .. .....

Index 475 Medhatithi, 342, 370 Naiyāyikas, 69 merit of Mahābharata evidence, 97 Nāka Maudgalya, 70 method and style ofthe Upanisads, 72 Nalanda, 361 methodological pleading by Johnston, Nandikeśvara, 422 82 Nanjio Catalogue, 346, 348, 352, 365 methodological requirements, 62 see also Catalogue Nanjio Mimārsa, 440 Naradà, 84, 200-1, 206, 210, 213, 216, Mimāmsakas, 69 233-4, 278 Mishra, A.P., 3, 46, 50, 106, 154, 177, 195, 211, 238, 248, 263, 271, 368- Narasimhagupta, 360 9,371 Nārāyaņa, 18, 99, 243 Mishra, Y., 113-14, 199 Nareśvaraparīksa, 157-8, 162, 167 Mithilā, 118 Natiomal Institute of Science of India, 135 Mitra-Varuņa, 194 Mokşadharma, 47, 187, 260; five nature and complexity evidence - Samkhya-yoga school, 99-100 traditions, 47-8; Pancarata, Pasupata, Samkhya, Vedic, Yoga nature of atman and its relationship Mokșádharmaparva, 12, 17, 22-4, 26, with other categories, 458 29, 61, 83, 87, 89-90, 92, 94, 97- nature of Samkhya accounts, 83 102, 105-6, 110-12, 115-18, 138, Nāvanitakà; 136 140, 143, 149, 188, 196-8, 200, Nidāndsūtra, 267, 321 201, 205, 212-13, 215; -223, 227, Nīmi Janaka, 111-13, 194-5, 197-8 232, 237, 248, 250, 252, 254-5, 261, 275, 303, 305-9, 311-12, 314, Nimi Jataka, 196 316, 336, 381, 393-5, 436-7, 439; Nirņayasindhu, 211 critical edition on, 85; Grund text Nirukta, 279, 281 in, 393; other groups, 88; non-Vedic, 6 philosophical thoughts of, 85, 223; no Samkhya philosopher in systematisation of Samkhya in, Upanișads, 71 223 Nyāya system, 359 Mokşakāņda, 228, 235 Nyāyasūtra,'179 Muka, 290, 337 Nyāyavārtika, 331 mukhyastambhiya sakha, 281 mūlikārthas, 9, 17, 21, 25, 28, 389 Oldenberg, H., 33, 45, 60, 305 Mundakopanişad, 65, 75, 306 developed pre-classical Samkhya, Musalagaonkar, G.S., 231, 238, 251 94 Musalagaonkar's late date of Devala, Oltramore, Paul, 44, 59, 304-5 231 omission of Varsaganya, 333 order of evolution, 285 Nāgārjuna, 433 Ottamaro, 6 Nāgeśa, 433

476 Retrieving Samkhya History

Padmapāda, 157, 161-2, 167, 186,264, parasamkhyana, 36-7 266, 268, 331, 371 Parāsara, 195, 249, 278, 281 Padma Purana, 55 paraváda, 11, 13, 26-7 Paila, 115 Pargiter, F.E., 112-13, 195 Paingya, 70 Pali literature, 144, 275 Parisamkhyana, 37, 39 Parsva, 402-3 Pañcadhikaraņā, 4, 21, 158, 161, 164- 6, 169-70, 264, 269-70, 288-90, Parsvanatha, 339

293-5, 298-9, 337; as a tântrika, Pasupatas, 93 159; date of, 168; his followers, Pāsupata, 48, 93 167; his philosophical views, 162- Patańjala Samkhya, 29, 273, 381-2 7, 164; name, 157; sources, 156, Patañjalatantra, 433 views on theory of knowledge, 164; Pataňjali, 4, 21, 36, 40, 136, 156, 158 works of, 160 Parcāngadhikaranas, 157, 167 162-4, 168-9, 263-8, 270, 272-5, 278, 290, 294-5, 298, 321, 337, Pañcaratra, 37, 48, 85, 387 381-2, 426, 433, 437, 440, 443, Pancasikha, 5, 7-9, 12-13, 16-18, 21, date of, 269; doctrine, 431; on 25-9, 42, 48, 55, 84, 86, 88, 95-6. Samkhya and Yoga, 271; 98, 102, 105, 118, 121, 138, 140, philosophical ideas. 431; text 143, 148-50, 153-6, 158, 160, 168- method in Kranacarita, 435; 70, 172-3, 176, 182-4, 187, 196, tradition as an author on Yoga 198-201,203,215, 221-2, 224, 232, 434 234-5. 248, 250, 252, 254-5, 257. Kitab Patañjala 264, 269-70, 278, 287-9, 291, 298- Yogasatra 9, 308-9, 312, 320, 324, 326, 333, Pauraisisti, 70 335, 340, 367, 386-8, 390, 398-9, 439 Paurika, 4, 21, 153-4, 156, 168-70.

standardisation of Samkhya, 385 290, 337; date of, 155

Sastitontra Puri, N., 360

Pañcasikhavākya, 84 philosophical contribution of Agnivesa and Caraka, 137 Panhavāgaranaim, 401 Panini, 135, 321, 323, 336, 440, 443 philosophical passages Devaladharmasütra, 238-45 Paramārtha, 156, 170, 172-3, 291 Pi-li-cha-kia-na, 343, 353 320, 333-4, 341-5, 347, 349-55, 358-62, 265, 368-9, 385, 433, 454, Pippalada, 70, 73

456; confusion created by, 348, Platonic, 72 350; explanation of his account Po-p'o-li, 291, 357 349; on Vindhyavasa's Prabhākara, 439 contribution, 350 Praceta, 278 Paramárthasaptati, 28, 345, 347,349- Prācinasāla, 70 51,355-7, 457 Pradhan, S.N., 112-13 Paramárthasara, 267

Index 477 pradhana, 52-3, 109, 153-4, 158, 164, Pythagoras, 430 168, 327-8 Pradhanastambha, 279 Pradhánikarahasya; 279 Raibhya, 278

Prajāpati, 70 Rainhost (Varşaganya), 287, 334 Rāma, 113, 196, 198 prakrti, 9,61, 107-9, 116-17, 120, 146, 154, 178, 181, 182; eight, 106; Ramachandra, 195 principle of, 15, theory of plurality Rāmayana, 50, 112-13, 194, 366, 393 of, 154-6 Ramayanam, 366 Pramanamlmamsđ, 369 Ranade, R.D., 61, 67, 69-70, 72, 75; Prānyamūlasāstra, 455-6 classes five groups, 75; criticiam Prapañcasáratantra, 157, 161, 186, of Upanisads, 74 264,266, 268,371 Rasavaisesikasūtra, 171-2, 330 Prasnopanişad, 6, 75 Rathitara, 70 Pratdardana, 70 relationship with Yoga, 28(Samkhya) pratyaya-sargas, 17,21, 25, 28, 297-8 Rgueda, 18, 44, 46, 61, 70, 133, 321 Pratyūsa, 212 Raikva, 70 Pre-Buddhistic Upanisads, 30, 59 Richness of Pre-Isvarakrsna Sarkhya, 9 pre-supposes vast Samkhya literature, 101 Rk-samhita, 19 problems considered by Upanisads. Romaharsa, 114-15 67 Rsabhesvara, 290, 337 problems of Pre-lsvarakrsna history, Rsimandala-ortti, 234 5 Rudra, 185, 278 Proclus, 430 Rudraka, 278 Proto-Samkhya, J, 22, 24, 30 Rudrața, 11 Pulastya, 278 Kavyalamkara Punarvasu Ātreya, 128, 131, 133-4. Rudrila, 342, 373, 442 278 see also Atreya Sabha, 233 Puranas, 3, 50, 76, 113-15, 175, 218- 19, 275, 278, 284-7, 300, 314, 314 Sachau, 42, 422

Purānavāgarananādagai, 367 Saddharsana-samuccaya, 40, 134. 153,292,328, 350,371-2; evidence, Purānic list, 112-13, 196 153 Purugupta, 360 Sagara, 53, 195, 198 purusa-prakrti, 46 Sahityamlmamsa, 378 Purusarthata, 28 Šaibya Satyakama, 70 Purusasūkta, 18 Šaiva doctrine, 432 Purusavidha Brahmana, 18 Śakti, 195

478 Retrieving Sämkhya History

Parāśara, 194 èvolution; 128-9; criticism by Śākyāyana, 272 Husan Tsang, 448; derivation,

Śalya, 233 33; development, 333;

Śalya-parva, 176-7, 181, 234 difficulties in using Mahabharata evidence, 81; Samavāyanga, 401 discrepancies account, 449; Samaveda, 274 doctrine, 350; dualism, 3, 46, Samgràha, 440 49, 57, 86, 304-5, 310, 457;

sargrahakāra, 222, 387-8 earliér 'or late, 291; early

Sāmkhya; 1-10, 13-19, 22, 24-6, 30-2, Buddhist account, 445; early

34,37,39-41, 48-57, 59, 71, 74, 76, Samkhya in, Yājnavalkya,

78-9, 85, 93-4, 97-102, 104-5, 108, 119; early stages in the

114, 118-21, 131, 138, 141-3, 146, development, 120,

148-50, 154, 165, 168-72, 179, 185, enunciation, 21; Epic, 89-96,

187, 192, 200, 206, 213, 215, 223- 98-104, 140, 143, 147-8, 198,

4, 227, 229, 233, 235, 237-8, 243- 201-2,'304, 306-7; epic-

6,'250, 253, 260-1, 263, 266, 268- Purāņic tradition, 170, épic-

9,272, 278, 281, 286, 288-91, 297, Samkhya the original

304, 306, 309,-312, 316-17, 319, Samkhya, 91; features of

321-2, 326-9, 333; 336, 339, 343, exposition, 392; of Gita, 421;

347, 351-2, 354-7, 359, 362-3, 365- of Kapila, 421; form and style

7, 373-4, 378, 380-2, 384, 389-91, of presentation, 103; four

393-95, 397-9, 407, 436, 441-2, stages, 18; fundamental

449, 451-8,'461-4; account of points, 457; approaches to the

development in a particular history of Samkhya, 24-41;

period, 452; an ignorant history, 1-5, 7, 13,'17-18, 21,

explanation, 40; ācāryas, 153; see 25, 27, 46, 63, 71, 89, 97-8,

teachers also, affinities between 100-1, 119,121, 123,130, 138,

Samkhya and Upanișads, 76; 141, 147, 150, 154, 169, 182-4,

antiquity, 75; ahti-Vedic folk 201, 206, 224, 227, 249, 254,

arigin, 48; arosein the Vedic circle, 272, 305-6, 308, 312, 316, 323,

55; as exdpounded by 333, 335-6, 340, 345, '347-8,

Yajñavalkya, 109-11; as spiritual 365,380,383-5, 389,394, 398;

discipline-parisāmkhyāna, 36; beginning, 24; early phase,

atheitic, 62, 88, 92, '302, 304-8, 24; post graduate phase, 24,

310, 314,-316, 390; belief in God, in authoritative Brāhmanical

29; changing meaning, 230; text, 50; in, Buddhacarita,

changes in derivative meaning, 139; development in a

39; circle (ten members) 378, 453; particular period, 452; in

codification, 224; controversy Vedic literature, 42, 44-5

regarding, 15 Jain sources, 25, 28; kşatriya

additional view, 18 origin, 48; lineage of Isvara-

meaning of, 15 krąna, 289; lineage between

original nature, 15-6; course of Pańcarika and Isvarakrșņa, 290; literature, 11, 26, 33, 99,

.... .. .... ... .... ...

Index 479

101, 254, 383 speculation in Vedic literature, important features, 26 43 - ākhyāyika - six traditions, 43-4 -paravāda stages in Samkhya history - materialistic interpretation, 49 considerations of Atheism, meaning and reasoning, 34; meta- 304; standerdisation by physics, 273; methodology Isvarakrşņa, 384-5 sources and approaches, 19, Pañcasikha, 385-7 24; monolistic form, 316; narratives, 27; non-theistic, stratification of views, 103

313-14; non-Vedic in origin structure, 28; Tantra, 192;

and character, 46; origin, 6, teachers, 84-5, 101, 103;

19, 44, 48, 59; over coating of terminology and principles in

Vedānta, 227; perióds of Upanişads, 77; theistic form,

ancient specu-lations, 3; 62, 91, 303-5, 308-11, 314-16,

philosophically earlier, 102; 324, 390; theory of causation,

philosophy, 1, 2, 11-12, 15, 17, 17, 373; theory of plurality

25, 61, 78-9, 83, 89, 116, 123, and spirit, 392; three

146, 159, 176, 202-3, 221, 224- important features of writing,

5, 231, 271, 279, 285, 304, 10; three usages, 30;

306, 310, 324, 341, 365, 383, traditions, 7, 10, 12, 51, 77,

398, 445, 447, 449, 457, 459; 143, 232, 387; tribal origin,

presupposes vast Samkhya 24; Upanișadic evidence, 59,

literature, 101; principles of 62-3; Upanișadic text, 63, 68-

Kapila, 15-16; principles of 9; Vedic circles, 24, 55-7; non-

pradhāna, 53; principles of Vedic circles, 24; Vedic

puruşa-bahutva, 53; connection, 18, 45-6; Vedic

Proto-Samkhya, 3, 22, 24, 30 context, 44; Vedic origin, 24; Vedic tradition, 42, 46, 48, 51, pūrva-pakșa account, 447 view about the plurality of relationship with Yoga, 28 purușas, 128, 193; view of Sanskrit texts, 81; sastra, 334 prakrti, 129; view of Vasiątha, satkarya theory, 142 188; view on God, 304, 312, schools, 77, 95, 286, 358 314, 316

classification into four Vrātya origin, 47; Yoga, 76;

streams, 277 sāmkhya & khyāti, 38-9, 42

identification by Kushwaha, Sāmkhya and Yoga, 9, 84, 101-3, 110, 287 118-19, 121, 140-1, 147, 182, 186,

scope, 31; in 189,201-3, 217, 224, 232-3, 238-9, Mahābhārata, 83 sections 244, 253-4, 260, 272-3, 275, 302,

Sesvara and Niriśvara, 301; 304, 310, 311, 315-16, 322, 381,

similarities with Upanişads; 390; Samkhya-yoga, 118-19, 121, 102; six main features; 123; 140, 143, 147, 149, 151, 172, 175,

sources, 20-1 178, 183, 227, 260, 262, 283,284,

480 Retrieving Samkhya History

304, 315; Samkhya-yoga school of Śāņdilya, 71, 211 Epic, 117-18, 202, 392 Sankalia, H.D., 445, 449-50 Sāmkhya-yoga philosophy, 277 Śankara, 50-4, 57, 64-6, 92, 187, 217, Samkhya-yoga terminology, 61 222, 232-3, 252, 255, 259, 264-5, Samkhyakârika, 3-7, 10, 12-18, 20- 363, 371, 389; Advaita Vedānta, 22, 24, 29, 31, 46, 49, 51, 55-6, 81- 93; criticism of Samkhya, 389; 2,89-91, 95-7, 99, 102-5, 119, 130, theory of illusion, 93 139, 141, 143, 146, 156, 159-60, Jayamangala 163, 169-70, 172-3, 192, 201, 214- Prapañcasāratantra 5, 220, 222, 225-6, 229-31, 235, 250, 252, 255, 257, 285, 288, 292, Šankarācārya, 250, 252, 364

302, 304, 307-9, 311, 314, 320, Śankara on Samkhya claim of Śruti

334-5, 344-7, 351-3, 357-8, 362-9, sanction, 52

383-5, 387, 439, 443, 451, 454, Śankara on Śvetāśvatara Upanişad 458, 460-1, 463; difference with, reference to Kapila, 53 213 Śankha, 40-1 Sāmkhyakārika as Kanaka-saptati, Sanmatitarka, 376 364 Śanti, 233 Samkhyakarikd as the basis for Śanti-parva, 12-13, 17-18, 22-3, 47, reconstruction, 7 56, 61, 83, 85, 105, 112, 138, 147- sämkhyam, 32 8, 176, 178, 181, 185, 187, 205-6, Samkhyapravacanasūtra, .6, 16, 20, 210,212-13, 215-16, 221, 223, 225, 25, 51, 81, 249-50, 254, 303-4, 233, 252, 261-2, 303, 309, 319, 313-14, 329 336, 393-4, 436, 439

Samkhyaşadādhyāyt, 248 Moksadharma-parva, 3

Samkhyasaptati, 249, 352, 364-5 sargas, (nine), 107, 117, 192

Samkhyasdstra, 201-2, 345-7, 365, Śarkarākşya, 70

448 Śarirasthāna, 147, 288 Samkhyasttra, 249 Sarvadarsąna-sargraha, 73 sarhkhyātam, 15-16, 33, sarvāstivādin, 361 Samkhyatattvakaumudt, 146, 249, Sasthitantra, 7-9, 17-18, 27-8, 183, 460 254, 308, 325-7, 346, 351, 358, Sāmkhyavrddhas, 26, 158-9, 169, 170 367, 369, 384, 386, 389-90

Samudragupta, 361, 435-6 Śāstravārttasamuccaya, 372-3

Sana, 278 Śatapatha, 114; including parisista,

Sanaka, 278 rahasya, samgraha, 114-15, 211

Sanandana, 278 Śatapatha Brāhmaņa, 115-16, 120

Sanātana, 278 Satasāstra, 455-6 Sanatkumāra, 47-8, 71, 278, 282 satpati, 28

Sanatsujātaparva, 83 Satthiyantar, 366-7, 387

Index 481

Satyakāryavāda (theory of), 332 Solomon, Estter A., 362 Satyayajña, 70 Soma, 243 Śaulbāyana, 71 Somadeva, 440 Saundaryalahari, 266 Śramaņa stream, 42 Schubring, Walther, 337, 402-3, 406, tradition, 14, 76

411-13 Śrauta, 54 Sense-organg nature and functioning, Śrauta-sttras, 253 293 Śridharasvāmi, 34, 40 Sha-Kia-fang-che, 446 Śriradhvaja Janaka, 199 Shaman-Hwai-li, 446 Śri-krana, 278; see also Krşna Sharma, H.D., 249 Śrutadevasūri, 170-1 Sharma, P.V., 136 Śrutis, 51-4, 69 Sharma, R.K., 136 Sharma Shukla, Suryanarayan, 267 stages in Samkhya history - consideration of atheism, 304 Sharma, Tanusukaram, 344, 441 Stahavira Vasubandhu, 359 Shashtri, U.V., 3, 21, 106, 112, 115, 154, 158-9, 184, 195, 198, 227, Sudāsa, 195-6, 198

231, 238, 242, 248-9, 260, 263, Safi, 431

265-6, 270-1, 323, 326, 328, 342, Šuka, 84, 98, 278 353-4, 363, 365, 367-8, 371, 442 Śukla Yajurveda, 114-15

Siddharsi, 249 Sukra, 278

Siddhasanadivākara, 376 Sulabha, 218, 278 Sanmatitarka Sumanas, 183 Siddhisthāna, 132, 137 Sumantu, 115

Śila-sūri, 407 Śuņga period, 136 Simharaśmi, 446, 455 Supreme Lord, 99 Śiradhvaja Janaka, 112-13, 196 Sūrya, 108; 114, 243 Sıtā, 113, 196, 199 Suryanarayan Sastri, 48 Śiva, 185, 205, 243, 284 Sūryapaņdita, 34 Śivadāsa, 430 Śuşkabhrngāra, 70 Śiva Purāņa, 288 Suśruta, 281

Si-yu-ki, 446 Suśruta-samhita, 249 Skandagupta (king), 243, 360 Sūta-samhitā, 249 Ślokavārttika, 362, 370, 379, 439, 441 sūtras, 11, 16, 36, 38, 72, 173, 248-9, Smith, V.A., 360 254, 273, 275, 443

Smrticandrika, 232, 258 Sayagada, 234, 402, 406-7

Smrtis, 50, 52-3 Svāgata, 112

Socrates, 430 Śvetđśvatara, 52, 62, 70, 75, 272, 303, 312

482 Retrieving Samkhya History Śvetāśvatara Upanișad, 36, 46, 51, 53-4, 60, 62, 218, 280, 305-6, 309, Țhānānga, 337, 401

324 theary of dichotomy, 48

Syalikanātha, 439, 442 guņas, 459

synthetic method, 73-4 three usages of Samkhya, 30 ... systematisation of Samkhya in the Tilak, B.G., 345

Mokşadharma-parva, 223 transmigration of purusa, 295

Syūmaraśmi, 56, 84 trdyt, 31-2 treatise and the debate, 357

Taittirlyopanişad, 65, 75 tretd age, 198

Takakusu, J., 286-7, 334, 345, 350, Tripitaka, 22, 135, 275 352-3, 355, 360, 363 Trisanku, 70, 194-5 Tantra, 17, 28, 30-1, 160, 254, 385-6, 432 Udańka, 71 tantrăntaras, 351 Uddālaka, 70 Tantravārttika, 258 Āruņi, 114 tantra-yukti, 31, 160 Uddyotkara, 172 Tantricism, 159 Udyoga-parva, 83 Tāntrika, 288-9 Ulūka, 170-1, 173, 232, 278, 290-1; Tarkavāgiśa, Raghunātha, 34 date, 172; philosophical views, tarpana (traditional list of sages), 397- 171-2

8 Ulūkadarśana, 170 Tātparyattkā, 175 Umā, 185, 243 Tattvārtharājavārtika, 170 Umbeka, 342, 349, 441 tattuas, 39-41, 94, 106, 109-10, 120, Upagupta, 112 127, 146, 188, 219, 265; Upamitibhavaprapañca-kathâ, 249 classification, 148; evolution, 110 Upanisadie philosophy, 68, 70, 176 Tattvasamāsa, 311 Upanișads, 19-20, 44-9, 59-64, 66-70, Tattavasamđsasütra, 6, 16, 20, 81, 75, 77-9, 91-2, 94, 97-8, 109, 111, 248-9, 254 114, 122, 149, 193, 305, 307-8, Tattvasamgraha, 342, 351, 373, 377- 312, 314, 316, 393; authors and 8 philosophers, 70-1; chronology, Tattvavaisāradi, 175-7, 349 75-6; doctrine of self, 309; meaning

Tehi-loķia, 135 and scope, 64; methods and styles, 72; no Sāmkhya philosopher in, term Samkhya in Caraka-samhitā, 71; pre-Buddhistic; 30, 59; 38 problems considered -by, 67; text group representing early form, Ranade's criticism, 74; synthetic 87 method, 73-4; cosmological and textual problems in evaluating psychological philosophers, 70; Caraka-sāmhitā evidence, 130 mystical and moral philosophers, 70

...

Index 483

Upanişads and Origin of Samkhya, 298-300, 309, 319, 323, 325, 327- 19 30, 332, 334, 336-7, 339, 340, 345- Upanişatkānda, 67 55,362-3,369-70, 380-1, 387,443;

Ur-text, 223-5 concept of karanas, 330; concept

use ofearly texts for Sämkhya history, of tanmātras, 330; contribution

308 in Samkhya principles, 319, 324, 326; date of, 335; doctrine of

Vācaspatimiśra, 42, 55, 175-7, 179- pañcaparvā avidyá, 324; king of

80,249, 273, 322, 325-6, 329, 344, Nagas, 333; omission in Chinese traditions, 333, in Isibhdsiyaim, 460 337 Bhāmati, Tātparyattkā Tattavaisaradi várta, 31-2 Varttika, 440, 443 Vādahrdaya, 361 Varuņa, 70 Vādavidhāna, 361 Vasistha, 84, 88, 96, 101, 106, 112, Vädavidhi, 361 118, 121, 147, 150, 187, 189-90, Vagbhața, 137 193, 195-6, 198-203, 259, 272, 278;

Vaidika Sārhkhya, 54 course of creation date, 197-9;

Vaiseşika philosophy, 173; systems, distinctive features of views, 191-

359 4; exposition of Samkhya, 201; his

theory of atom, 327 place in Samkhya history, 198- 202; his various names, 188; in Vaişņavism, 283 history 194-7; philosophical views, Vākyapadīya, 157, 162, 440 188-91

Vallabhācārya, 39 Vasiştha-dharmasūtra, 187 Vālmīki, 232, 290-1 Vasubandhu, 28, 332, 334, 343-5, 347- Vamadeva, 71, 278 52, 356-62, 368, 456-7

Vāmana, 360-1 Abhidharmakośa

Vamana Purāņa, 397-9 Paramârthasaptati

Vamanasastri Islampurkar, 259 Vådahrdaya

van Buitenen, 87-8, 103, 140, 143 Vādvidhi and Vādavidhāna

Vardhamāna Mahāvīra, 402 Vāsudeva, 53-4, 219, 281, 430

Vārisakaņhā, 337, 339 Vāsudeva Kapila, 54

Varisava, 337 Vāsuki, 266

Varku Vārşņa, 71 Vatsa, 171, 278

Vārșagaņa, 158, 230, 264, 288, 298, Vâyu Purāņa, 171, 280, 283, 439

300; 320-1, 323, 332, 349-50, 353, Vedangas, 32 355, 358, 365, 377; historicity, Vedānta, 85, 227, 432 321 idealism, 49 Vārșagaņya, 4-5, 17, 21, 27-8, 146, Vedanta-sūtra, 259 155-6, 169, 171-2, 183, 231, 251, 269-70, 278, 287-8, 290, 294-5, Vedāntin explanation, 69

484 Retrieving Samkhya History

Vedas, 32, 45-6, 49-52, 60, 69, 76, 108, 114, 118, 120, 312 external evidence, 362; philosophical views, 370-82; Atharvaveda, Itihāsaveda theory of knowledge, 374-5; Vedavāda, 183 treatise and debate, 357 Vedic, 6, 24, 47; non-Vedic, 24 Vindhyavāsin and Isvarakrsņa, 363 Vedic literature, 14, 18, 42, 44-5, 113 Vindhyavāsin and Vārşagaņya, 352 Vedic means of removing sufferings, Vindhyavāsin and Vyādi, 344 55 Virocana, 70 Vedic orthodoxy, 93 Vişņu, 53-4, 93, 188, 280, 291 period, 30 Vişnu Dharma, 428 sacrifices, 55 Vişņu Purāņa, 194, 219, 280 text, 115 tradition, 18, 48, 51, 77 Visvanātha, 11

Upanişadic text, 59 Sahityadarpana

Vicitrarūpa, 188 Viśvarūpa, 188

Vidagda Sakalya, 71 Viśvāvasu, 101, 106, 108, 114, 116, 319, 336, 439 Videhan kings, 112-14 Viśvātmā, 188 Vidyāraņya, 249 Vivasvān, 278 Vijñānabhiksu, 273, 303 Viyahapannatti, 404 Vikramāditya, 334, 360-1, 440 Vodhu, 277, 397-9; absence of vikāras, 106 reference, 398; 'historicity, 398; Vindhyavāsa, 278, 333-6, 341-5, 348- senior to Asuri,/398; Weber on .. .. 50,352-5,357, 359-62, 364, 456-7; Vodhu, 399 after Isvarakreņa, 363; Chinese Vrātya origin, 47, 310 account about, 347; his Buddhist Vrddhācārya Vasubandhu, 359 adversary, 356; identification with Ísvarakrşņa, 344, 346 Vrddha-Hartta-smrti, 257-8

Vindhyavāsa and Vasubandhu, 355 Vrddha-Prāsara, 22, 140, 143, 149-

Vindhyavāst, 288 50, 176, 184, 278

Vindhyavasin, 4, 5, 27, 160, 163, 169, Vrşagana, 288, 320, 323, 336, 353, € 355 293-6, 298, 335, 341-4, 347-50, 353, 355, 358, 362-3, 369, 371-4, Vrsagaņavira, 323, 331

376-82, 442-3 Vyādi, 182-3, 278, 368, 442; advocate concept of enjoyment, 371 of vyaktivāda, 439; as Sāmkhya

concent of subtle intermediate teacher, 439-40; composition of

body; 367-8, 370; contempo- lexicons, 440; date, 443; disciple

raneity with Vasubandhu, of bhagavân Varsa, 143;

359; date of, 359; his grammarian, 440, 442; his

participation in debate with personality, 440; his views, 441;

Buddhist, 352; his views on identified with Vindhyavasin, 441

sāmānya, 379; internał and Vyāsa, 36-8, 84, 90, 155, 175, 180,

.......

Index 485

185, 194, 264-5, 270, 277-8, 287, 145, 171, 177, 181, 184, 191, 200, 326-7, 370, 381-2, 394 227, 244, 258, 260-1, 263, 265-7, Yoga-bhāşya 271-3, 275, 288, 319, 322, 337, Yoga-sütra-bhaşya 339, 381-2, 389, 416, 422, 431-3; Vydsabhasya, 185, 268-70, 273, 382 association of Samkhya, 316;

Vyāsa-smrti, 36 characteristics, 392; classical, 288;

Vyavaharapadas, 300 doctrine, 392; of two kinds, philosophy, 202, 269; theistic, 311; treatment of God, 315 Weber on Vodhu, 399 Yogabhāşya, 38, 140, 143, 148, 155, Winternitz, 23, 231 175-8, 180, 183, 185, 265, 270,322 World Soul, 75 Yogācārabhūmi, 332 Yogadarpana, 433 Yajñavalkya, 12, 71, 73, 84, 88-9, 96, Yogadarsana, 435 101, 106, 108-14, 119-20, 147, 272, Yogasastra, 116, 265, 322, 455 282, 299, 319, 392-3, 395; his process of creation, 107; his Yoga school, 96, 297; nature and

process of dissolution, 107; in complexity of evidence, 99-100

Mokşadharma-parva, 106, 114 Yoga-sütra, 29, 36-7, 94, 97, 136, 155,

Yājnavalkya and Daivarāti Janaka 176-7, 180, 185, 263, 265-71, 274-

date, 111, 117 5, 287, 322, 372, 381, 421-3, 432,

background, 114-15 434-5, 437

followers, 116-17 Yoga-sūtra-bhāşya, 36, 264, 326, 328

Yajñavalkya-smrti, 217, 235, 389 yogindra, 176-7 Yudhişthira, 106, 196, 213, 261, 292 Yājnavalkya-Vājasaneya, 114 Yājnavalkya and Vasiętha, 117 Yuktidīpikā, 21, 26, 28, 31, 144, 150, 155-63, 167-70, 187, 196, 198-9, Yakşa, 172 230, 249, 257-8, 263-9, 270-1, 290, Yama, 70 293-7, 299, 314, 320, 323, 326,

Yaśastilakacampü, 170 328-32, 335, 337, 346-7, 351, 353,

Yaska, 278 356-7,362-3,368-9, 371, 373-5; on divergent views in Samkhya Yaśomitra, 359 system, 292; on Paurika, 153; Yen-t' Sung, 446, 450-1 schools in, 298 Yoga, 28-9,32, 34, 36-8,47-8,50-1, 85, 88, 92, 94, 100, 102, 110, 121, 141, Zimmer, H., 310

Contemporary Researches in Hindu Philosophy & Religion (ISSN 0971-9628)

1. Idealistic Thought in Indian Philosophy: Rise and growth from the Vedic Times to the Kevlādvaita Vedānta up to Prakāśānanda of 16th century, including as propounded in the Mahayana Buddhism; by Shuchita C. Divatia. (ISBN 81-246-0021-X) Rs. 295

2. Karma and Reincarnation: The Vedantic Perspective; by Muni Narayana Prasad (ISBN 81-246-0022-8) (Pbk.) Rs. 80

3. Stonemill and Bhakti: From the Devotion of Peasant Women to the Philosophy of Swamies; by Guy Poitevin and Hema Rairkar. (ISBN 81-246-0059-7) Rs. 750

4. Śaivism: Some Glimpses; by G.V. Tagare. (ISBN 81-246-0076-7) Rs. 180

5. Advaita: A Conceptual Analysis; by A. Ramamurty. (ISBN 81-246-0067-8) Rs. 275

6. Mind-Body Dualism: A Philosophic Investigation; by Alpana Chakraborty. (ISBN 81-246-0071-6) Rs.300

7. Hinduism and Scientific Quest; by T.R.R. lyengar. (ISBN 81-246-0077-5) Rs. 350

8 Indra and Other Vedic Deities - A Euhemeristic Study; by Uma Chakravarty (ISBN 81-246-0080-5) Rs. 300

9 Brahma-Vāda: Doctrine of Śri Vallabhācārya; by G.V. Tagare. (ISBN 81-246-0112-7) Rs. 170

10. The Science of Enlightenment: Enlightenment, Liberation and God - A Scientific Explanation; by Nitin Trasi. (ISBN 81-246-0130-5) Rs. 400

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. 'Sri Kunj', F-52 Bali Nagar, NEW DELHI - 110 015 Phs. : (011) 545 3975, 546 6019; Fax : (011) 546 5926 E-mail : [email protected]

Contemporary Researches in Hindu Philosophy & Religion (ISSN 0971-9628)

1. Idealistic Thought in Indian Philosophy: Rise and growth from the Vedic Times to the Kevlādvaita Vedānta up to Prakāśānanda of 16th century, including as propounded in the Mahāyāna Buddhism; by Shuchita C. Divatia. (ISBN 81-246-0021-X) Rs. 295

2. Karma and Reincarnation: The Vedantic Perspective; by Muni Narayana Prasad (ISBN 81-246-0022-8) (Pbk.) Rs. 80

3. Stonemill and Bhakti: From the Devotion of Peasant Women to the Philosophy of Swamies; by Guy Poitevin and Hema Rairkar. (ISBN 81-246-0059-7) Rs. 750

4. Saivism: Some Glimpses; by G.V. Tagare. (ISBN 81-246-0076-7) Rs. 180

5 Advaita: A Conceptual Analysis; by A. Ramamurty. (ISBN 81-246-0067-8) Rs. 275

6 Mind-Body Dualism: A Philosophic Investigation; by Alpana Chakraborty. (ISBN 81-246-0071-6) Rs.300

7. Hinduism and Scientific Quest; by T.R.R. Iyengar. (ISBN 81-246-0077-5) Rs. 350

8 Indra and Other Vedic Deities - A Euhemeristic Study; by Uma Chakravarty. (ISBN 81-246-0080-5) Rs. 300

9 Brahma-Vāda: Doctrine of Śri Vallabhācārya; by G.V. Tagare. (ISBN 81-246-0112-7) Rs. 170

10 The Science of Enlightenment: Enlightenment, Liberation and God - A Scientific Explanation; by Nitin Trasi. (ISBN 81-246-0130-5) Rs. 400

D.K. Printworld (P) Ltd. 'Sri Kunj', F-52 Bali Nagar, NEW DELHI - 110 015 Phs. : (011) 545 3975, 546 6019; Fax : (011) 546 5926 E-mail : [email protected]