A History of Indian Philosophy Part 33

218

other chapters of the _Mahabharata_ (XII. 203, 204). The self apart from the body is described as the moon of the new moon day; it is said that as Rahu (the shadow on the sun during an eclipse) cannot be seen apart from the sun, so the self cannot be seen apart from the body. The selfs ([email protected]@h_) are spoken of as manifesting from [email protected]

We do not know anything about asuri the direct disciple of Kapila [Footnote ref 1]. But it seems probable that the system of [email protected] we have sketched here which appears in fundamentally the same form in the _Mahabharata_ and has been attributed there to Pancas'ikha is probably the earliest form of [email protected] available to us in a systematic form. Not only does [email protected]'s reference to the school of Maulikya [email protected] justify it, but the fact that Caraka (78 A.U.) does not refer to the [email protected] as described by [email protected]@[email protected] and referred to in other parts of _Mahabharata_ is a definite proof that [email protected]@[email protected]'s [email protected] is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as an authoritative old [email protected] view.

Wa.s.silief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavasin altered the [email protected] according to his own views [Footnote ref 2]. Takakusu thinks that Vindhyavasin was a t.i.tle of [email protected]@[email protected] [Footnote ref 3] and Garbe holds that the date of [email protected]@[email protected] was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a very plausible view that [email protected]@[email protected] was indebted for his karikas to another work, which was probably written in a style different from what he employs. The seventh verse of his _Karika_ seems to be in purport the same as a pa.s.sage which is found quoted in the

[Footnote 1: A verse attributed to asuri is quoted by [email protected] (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ p. 104). The purport of this verse is that when buddhi is transformed in a particular manner, it ([email protected]) has experience.

It is like the reflection of the moon in transparent water.]

[Footnote 2: Va.s.silief's _Buddhismus,_ p. 240.]

[Footnote 3: Takakusu's "A study of Paramartha's life of Vasubandhu," _J.

R.A.S._, 1905. This identification by Takakusu, however, appears to be extremely doubtful, for [email protected] mentions [email protected]@[email protected] and Vindhyavasin as two different authorities (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ pp. 102 and 104). The verse quoted from Vindhyavasin (p. 104) in [email protected]@tubh metre cannot be traced as belonging to [email protected]@[email protected] It appears that [email protected]@[email protected] wrote two books; one is the [email protected] karika_ and another an independent work on [email protected], a line from which, quoted by [email protected], stands as follows:

"[email protected] s'rotradisamuttha [email protected]_" (p. 108).

If Vacaspati's interpretation of the cla.s.sification of anumana in his _Tattvakaumudi_ be considered to be a correct explanation of [email protected] karika_ then [email protected]@[email protected] must be a different person from Vindhyavasin whose views on anumana as referred to in _S'lokavarttika,_ p. 393, are altogether different. But Vacaspati's own statement in the [email protected]_ (pp. 109 and 131) shows that his treatment there was not faithful.]

219

_Mahabhasya_ of Patanjali the grammarian (147 B.C.) [Footnote ref 1].

The subject of the two pa.s.sages are the enumeration of reasons which frustrate visual perception. This however is not a doctrine concerned with the strictly technical part of [email protected], and it is just possible that the book from which Patanjali quoted the pa.s.sage, and which was probably paraphrased in the arya metre by [email protected]@[email protected] was not a [email protected] book at all. But though the subject of the verse is not one of the strictly technical parts of [email protected], yet since such an enumeration is not seen in any other system of Indian philosophy, and as it has some special bearing as a safeguard against certain objections against the [email protected] doctrine of [email protected], the natural and plausible supposition is that it was the verse of a [email protected] book which was paraphrased by [email protected]@[email protected]

The earliest descriptions of a [email protected] which agrees with [email protected]@[email protected]'s [email protected] (but with an addition of is'vara) are to be found in Patanjali's _Yoga sutras_ and in the _Mahabharata;_ but we are pretty certain that the [email protected] of Caraka we have sketched here was known to Patanjali, for in _Yoga sutra_ I. 19 a reference is made to a view of [email protected] similar to this.

From the point of view of history of philosophy the [email protected] of Caraka and Pancas'ikha is very important; for it shows a transitional stage of thought between the [email protected] ideas and the orthodox [email protected] doctrine as represented by [email protected]@[email protected]

On the one hand its doctrine that the senses are material, and that effects are produced only as a result of collocations, and that the [email protected] is unconscious, brings it in close relation with Nyaya, and on the other its connections with Buddhism seem to be nearer than the orthodox [email protected]

We hear of a [email protected]@t.i.tantras'astra_ as being one of the oldest [email protected] works. This is described in the _Ahirbudhnya [email protected]_ as containing two books of thirty-two and twenty-eight chapters [Footnote ref 2]. A quotation from _Rajavarttika_ (a work about which there is no definite information) in Vacaspati Mis'ra's commentary on the [email protected] karika_(72) says that it was called the [email protected]@[email protected] because it dealt with the existence of [email protected], its oneness, its difference from [email protected], its purposefulness for [email protected], the multiplicity of [email protected], connection and separation from [email protected], the evolution of

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Patanjali's [email protected], IV. I. 3.

[email protected]@sat murttyantaravyavadhanat [email protected] indriyadaurvalyadatipramadat,_ etc. (Benares edition.)]

[Footnote 2: _Ahirbudhnya [email protected],_ pp. 108, 110.]

220

the categories, the inactivity of the [email protected] and the five _viparyyayas_, nine [email protected]@tis, the defects of organs of twenty-eight kinds, and the eight siddhis [Footnote ref 1].

But the content of the [email protected]@t.i.tantra_ as given in _Ahirbudhnya [email protected]_ is different from it, and it appears from it that the [email protected] of the [email protected]@t.i.tantra_ referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya [email protected]_ was of a theistic character resembling the doctrine of the Pancaratra [email protected] and the _Ahirbudhnya [email protected]_ says that Kapila's theory of [email protected] was a [email protected]@nava one. Vijnana Bhiksu, the greatest expounder of [email protected], says in many places of his work [email protected] [email protected]_ that [email protected] was originally theistic, and that the atheistic [email protected] is only a [email protected]_ (an exaggerated attempt to show that no supposition of is'vara is necessary to explain the world process) though the _Mahabharata_ points out that the difference between [email protected] and Yoga is this, that the former is atheistic, while the latter is theistic. The discrepancy between the two accounts of [email protected]@[email protected]_ suggests that the original [email protected]@t.i.tantra_ as referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya [email protected]_ was subsequently revised and considerably changed. This supposition is corroborated by the fact that [email protected] does not mention among the important Sa@mkhya works _@Sa@[email protected]_ but _@Sa@[email protected]_

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The doctrine of the _viparyyaya, tusti_, defects of organs, and the _siddhi_ are mentioned in the _Karika_ of Is'varakr@sna, but I have omitted them in my account of Samkhya as these have little philosophical importance. The viparyyaya (false knowledge) are five, viz. avidya (ignorance), asmita (egoism), raga (attachment), dve@sa (antipathy), abhimives'a (self-love), which are also called _tamo, moha, mahamoha, tamisra_, and _andhatamisra_. These are of nine kinds of tusti, such as the idea that no exertion is necessary, since prak@rti will herself bring our salvation (_ambhas_), that it is not necessary to meditate, for it is enough if we renounce the householder's life (_salila_), that there is no hurry, salvation will come in time (_megha_), that salvation will be worked out by fate (_bhagya_), and the contentment leading to renunciation proceeding from five kinds of causes, e.g. the troubles of earning (_para_), the troubles of protecting the earned money (_supara_), the natural waste of things earned by enjoyment (_parapara_), increase of desires leading to greater disappointments (_anuttamambhas_), all gain leads to the injury of others (_uttamambhas_). This renunciation proceeds from external considerations with those who consider prak@rti and its evolutes as the self. The siddhis or ways of success are eight in number, viz. (1) reading of scriptures (_tara_), (2) enquiry into their meaning (_sutara_), (3) proper reasoning (_taratara_), (4) corroborating one's own ideas with the ideas of the teachers and other workers of the same field (_ramyaka_), (5) clearance of the mind by long-continued practice (_sadamudita_). The three other siddhis called pramo