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 ([emailprotected]@h_) are spoken of as manifesting from [emailprotected]
We do not know anything about asuri the direct disciple of Kapila [Footnote ref 1]. But it seems probable that the system of [emailprotected] 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 [emailprotected] available to us in a systematic form. Not only does [emailprotected]'s reference to the school of Maulikya [emailprotected] justify it, but the fact that Caraka (78 A.U.) does not refer to the [emailprotected] as described by [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] and referred to in other parts of _Mahabharata_ is a definite proof that [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]'s [emailprotected] is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as an authoritative old [emailprotected] view.
Wa.s.silief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavasin altered the [emailprotected] according to his own views [Footnote ref 2]. Takakusu thinks that Vindhyavasin was a t.i.tle of [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] [Footnote ref 3] and Garbe holds that the date of [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a very plausible view that [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] 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 [emailprotected] (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ p. 104). The purport of this verse is that when buddhi is transformed in a particular manner, it ([emailprotected]) 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 [emailprotected] mentions [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] and Vindhyavasin as two different authorities (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ pp. 102 and 104). The verse quoted from Vindhyavasin (p. 104) in [emailprotected]@tubh metre cannot be traced as belonging to [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] It appears that [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] wrote two books; one is the [emailprotected] karika_ and another an independent work on [emailprotected], a line from which, quoted by [emailprotected], stands as follows:
"[emailprotected] s'rotradisamuttha [emailprotected]_" (p. 108).
If Vacaspati's interpretation of the cla.s.sification of anumana in his _Tattvakaumudi_ be considered to be a correct explanation of [emailprotected] karika_ then [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] 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 [emailprotected]_ (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 [emailprotected], 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 [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] was not a [emailprotected] book at all. But though the subject of the verse is not one of the strictly technical parts of [emailprotected], 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 [emailprotected] doctrine of [emailprotected], the natural and plausible supposition is that it was the verse of a [emailprotected] book which was paraphrased by [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]
The earliest descriptions of a [emailprotected] which agrees with [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]'s [emailprotected] (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 [emailprotected] of Caraka we have sketched here was known to Patanjali, for in _Yoga sutra_ I. 19 a reference is made to a view of [emailprotected] similar to this.
From the point of view of history of philosophy the [emailprotected] of Caraka and Pancas'ikha is very important; for it shows a transitional stage of thought between the [emailprotected] ideas and the orthodox [emailprotected] doctrine as represented by [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]
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 [emailprotected] is unconscious, brings it in close relation with Nyaya, and on the other its connections with Buddhism seem to be nearer than the orthodox [emailprotected]
We hear of a [emailprotected]@t.i.tantras'astra_ as being one of the oldest [emailprotected] works. This is described in the _Ahirbudhnya [emailprotected]_ 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 [emailprotected] karika_(72) says that it was called the [emailprotected]@[emailprotected] because it dealt with the existence of [emailprotected], its oneness, its difference from [emailprotected], its purposefulness for [emailprotected], the multiplicity of [emailprotected], connection and separation from [emailprotected], the evolution of
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Patanjali's [emailprotected], IV. I. 3.
[emailprotected]@sat murttyantaravyavadhanat [emailprotected] indriyadaurvalyadatipramadat,_ etc. (Benares edition.)]
[Footnote 2: _Ahirbudhnya [emailprotected],_ pp. 108, 110.]
220
the categories, the inactivity of the [emailprotected] and the five _viparyyayas_, nine [emailprotected]@tis, the defects of organs of twenty-eight kinds, and the eight siddhis [Footnote ref 1].
But the content of the [emailprotected]@t.i.tantra_ as given in _Ahirbudhnya [emailprotected]_ is different from it, and it appears from it that the [emailprotected] of the [emailprotected]@t.i.tantra_ referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya [emailprotected]_ was of a theistic character resembling the doctrine of the Pancaratra [emailprotected] and the _Ahirbudhnya [emailprotected]_ says that Kapila's theory of [emailprotected] was a [emailprotected]@nava one. Vijnana Bhiksu, the greatest expounder of [emailprotected], says in many places of his work [emailprotected] [emailprotected]_ that [emailprotected] was originally theistic, and that the atheistic [emailprotected] is only a [emailprotected]_ (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 [emailprotected] and Yoga is this, that the former is atheistic, while the latter is theistic. The discrepancy between the two accounts of [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]_ suggests that the original [emailprotected]@t.i.tantra_ as referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya [emailprotected]_ was subsequently revised and considerably changed. This supposition is corroborated by the fact that [emailprotected] does not mention among the important [emailprotected] works [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]_ but [emailprotected]@[emailprotected]_
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: The doctrine of the _viparyyaya, tusti_, defects of organs, and the _siddhi_ are mentioned in the _Karika_ of Is'[emailprotected], 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), [emailprotected] (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 [emailprotected] 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 [emailprotected] 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