i An English Translation of i IS‘VARA KRSNA’S SAMKHYA KARIKAS wits THE GAUDAPADA-BHASYA. (SAMKHYA) Salutations to that Kapila who, feeling compassion on the world sinking in the ocean of ignorance, constructed a boat in the shape of Sarikhya for crossing (that ocean). For the good of the pupils, 1 shall compendiously explain this science briefly and clearly, giving proofs, conclusions and reasons. Kiriké 1 j ; On account of affliction from threefold misery, inquiry (should be instituted) into the means for its aes removal. If (i ve saiu that) it is useiess because of the (existence of) evident means, (then we reply—) no, i & because of the absence of certainty and finality. j The threefold misery, etc. This arya is introduced:— The exalted sage, Kapila by name, was the son of ' Brahman. As itis said: le “Sanaka, Sanandana, Santana the third, Asuri, Kapila, Vodhu and Paficasikha—, these seven sages are said to be the sons of Brahman.” a Virtue, knowledge, renunciation and power were bora eat | with Kapila. Thus born, seeing this world sinking in the alinding gloom and the succession of saristra (birth and death), he became filled with compassion and taught this : knowledge of twenty-five principles to the brahmin Asuri, : bom in his own family,—the knowledge by which misery: comes to an end. SKI | ! pereerrrorr ve ke HE EO|3 SAMKHYAKARIKA oF iSVARAKRSNA to commenters of GAUDAPADA Translated into English with Notes By pr. T. G. MAINKAR DMs Aas PhaDos De Lit 6 Bhandarkar Profesor of Sak FG Pre Deptof Saraki, Bombay Ue ew py pana Dar Profesor of San, ‘Det Universite: Jormert rica, Ferguson Clete, POO ORIENTAL BOOK AGENCY POONASAMKHYAKARIKA oF ° ISVARAKRSNA ue with the commentary of GAUDAPADA ‘Translated into English with Notes By DR. T. G. MAINKAR, 1M, Aas PhiDe, Ds Lite 18.6. Bhandarkar Professor of Sansrit and 3 Froat ofthe Dept, of Sanskrit, Bomiay University ‘Dar Professor of Sanskslt, Delhi Universi; 1, Fergusson College, Poona formerty Pandit formerly Principal NEAL BOOK AGENCY POONAlished by * 'R, Sardesa, B.Se. (HONS) ropicto ental Bock ASEY 39 Narayan, Poon 30. <1 Revised & Eolarged Eaition, 1772 Secon Printed by + D.¥. Ambekar, ‘asyablaashan Press Sait Shivajinasae Poona 4 10 My TEACHER Prin. R. D. Karmarkar wT PROFOUND GRATEFULNESS, -PREFACE, TO-FIRST EDITION ‘The Sainbhyakarika of Hvarakteoa is very happy Mle roa pining ts the exposition of sbe Subidaya docting 4 treatise de manner. Poetry and Philosophy appetr fF ‘hand sreematic maine enlivans the otber. Though there, fo in bepie evidence to support the contention 4 ‘Svapneavara, yet Het naiyama cthat Levarakrsaa, Kalidasa, tbe celebrated and Ghinsquthor of the Karika, 1 fee] tempted to aeeere the ove, isthe auth Of tried to develop the idea in my Kalidasan ‘Brt and Thought. While preparing this study Ihave congulted Colebrook, win iS Bist NA. Sastr, Har Dutt Sharma; Sov20t and Wilsom 8 Gp all these Tam greatly indebted. (I bavy also others ache scholarly works of Keith, Takalus, Jacobi, $oneiiSpta, Radhakrishnan and I vers gratefuly ‘acknowledge DasagePts cbom, The text of the Kanika, and of the Gauda- Ty, dtasya have begn the one accepted by Fiat te ‘Sharma in pacathiye bie Karka published by the Ottental ‘Book ‘Agency, Poona. Tam indebeod to Shri K. R. Sardesai, Proprietor of the Oriental Book Agency sho bas raken ean interest ip Fo work. Qriental i fhaaks are due to Shri Savadi and Shr, ‘Dhayagude My special ODT proofs. To che Managers of the Aryabhasien rho corrected my bost thanks due for their. uniform courtesy and kindness. Caitra Pratipada } ‘Tath March, 1964 7. G, Mainkar Poona. PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION ‘his second edition of the Stinkbyakarika 1 have tt ths Sdipika and-bave made additions from the same. ‘Rust that this second edition, will the Same: Jae game kind of reception like its predecessor from ‘the world of scholars. T fave to thank Mr, KR. Sardesal, Proprietor, of he Orient ce agency and the authorities of the Arvablushan Qsiontal Book, eheir interest, in my work and for seeing it Prost jh the Press. 1 am grateful to them for sheir courtesy. 17 October, 1972 T. G. Mainkar Vijaya Daamt } BombaySelect Bibliography for the Sarikhyakarika Belvalkar S. K. : Bhandarkar Commemoration Vol. pp: 171-184 Colebrooke and Wilson : The Satkhyakariki. (Bombay, 1887 ) Davies John : The Sathkehyakarika of Evarakrena. (London, 1881) Dasagupta S.N. : A History of Indian Philosophy. Vol. I. (Cambridge, 1922 ) Garbe : Sainlehya Philosophie. (2nd Biition ) Hiriyanna M. : Outlines of Indian Philosophy. (London, 1992) Sastitantra and Varsaganya (JOR. Madras, 1929 April-June, pp. 107-112). Jacobi : Gottingische galehrte Anzeigen, 1919, 1895, Keith : Sainichya System. ‘London, 1924.) ‘Max Miller : The six systems of Indian Philosophy. (London, 1928 ) Mukerjee J. N. : The Satikhya or the theory of Reality. (Nagpur, 1930) Phukan Radhahath : The Sainkehyakarik. (Calcutta, 1960 ) Radhakrishnan S. : Indian Philosophy, Vol. II. (2nd Edition ) Ranade R, D. : A Constructive Survey of the Upanisads. (Poona, 1926 ) Sharma Har Dutt : The Tattvakaumud!. The Oriental Book Agency, Poona, 1934 ‘The Sarbkbyakarika. The Oriental Book Agency. (Poona, 1934) Sastri N. Aivasvami : SuvarnasaptatiSastra. (Tirupati, 1944) Sastri S, Suryanarayan, : The Samnkhyakarika of Iivarakrsna ( Madras, 1985) ‘Senagupta Anima : The Evolution of the Sazakhya Thought, (Lucknow, 1959) Sovani V. V. + A critical study of the Satikhya System, (Poona, 1935 ) Takakusu : Bulletin de l'Ecole Francaise Extreme Orient. (Vol. IV) Tanusukharama : The Matharavrtti. (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. No, 296) Tilak B. G. : Sanskrit Research. Vol. I part ii. pp. 107-117. The Siinkhyakaikt PAGES 134 35-208 209-211,ABBREVIATIONS BS. Badardyanasttra, C. Colebrooke. D. Davies FH. Fite-Edward Hall. G. Gaudapade HS. Har Dutt Sharma. ‘M. Mathara. NB. Nyayabhasva, Vatsyayana, S. Suryandrayana Sastri STV. Siihkhya-taru-vasanta. V. Vicaspati, ‘YD. Yuktidtpiki see accion INTRODUCTION (1) Of the different systems of philosophical thought chat orelved in ancient India, the Sitbkhya is perhaps the most important and the oldest one. It has exercised tremen= Ont iiwence over practically all the different systems that dows Mater, It is as much a child of the Upanisads, as much as $Rr Vedanea itself, has something in it which goes to indicace fee Nations with Buddhism and Jainism to0, and finally thoagh iS Eeded by the Vedanta as its principal opponent, as influ: ree the Velaneic thought 2s well. Saibkara has been quite enced in admitting the greatness of this thought when be craved that this thought was Full of logic (yuktigadha ) and yas acgepted by the great in the society (mahijana-parigriisa) From Sainkara’s own testimony it appears that the Saitkhyas fad ied to establish their claims too, for the support of the Vipauisads, Sazhkara observes that it is bis special aim Slow that the explanation offered of the Upanisadic passages ‘by the Satakhyas is not the correct explanation and that the ee ence explanation is the one offered by him, ( Samkhyadayal, Svapaksasthapanaya vedantavakyaoi udabtya...na semyag- Syakbyinam, p. 220), Sainkara adds also that the Sisbkhyo= Tantra was of weight ( mahandi) and that its founder was beld setensiderable esteem (sarvajfiabbasita). Themain difference ie eoen the traditional approach and that of the Sainkhyas eepears to be that the Saikhyas insisted upon the use of Pete in philosophical matters and regarded it as having a far iqreater scope than the one given to it by those who admitrod Steolute authority of the Agamas, hence the use of the term stnummana by Badarayana as indicative of the Sainkhya. The Sunkhyas held that Reality was a matter that could be known, aaron the other valid sources of knowledge ( pramanantara- Gunga ) while the Vedanta appears to have held thar it is only (eer through the Agamas (agama-gamyavartha ). IE all thas things are put together, the Sainkhya emerges out as a powerful rational thought, developed out of the Upanisadic Powe by a powerful mind that had held sway over thinking wits and therefore was a serious rival of the Vedanta. Pindition is unanimous, though rather bazy, about ascribing2 ‘The Sainbhya-Kari the foundership of this celebrated rational and intellectual thought to Kapila. (2) The meaning of the term Sainkhya The word Sitikhya itself occurs in the Upanisads along with the usual associate Yoga and indicates metaphysical inquiry, inquiry about the cause of the universe, an inquiry that leads to the knowledge of this cause, (Tat Karanam Sitakbyayogabbipannam. Svetaéva, VI. 13). Different and interesting explanations have been offered about the precise ‘meaning of this word or the process as to how it must have acquired the meaning and a few may be noted here. HALL thinks that etymologically considered Siiakhya is immediately allied to Sainihya, a word bearing the acceptation of ‘number’ and also that of ‘decision’. According to ROER, the term ‘Saikhya has two meanings, ‘enumeration and investigation M, SAINT-HILAIRE is of the view that the word Sazhya which is the name given to the system of Kapila, signifies “number” and then adjectively numerical and it also signifies its closely associated meaning, calculation, computation, judgement, reasoning. COLEBROOKE expresses his view that ‘a system of philosophy in which precision of reckoning is observed in the enumeration of its principles, is denominated Satnkhya; a term which has been understood to signify numeral, agreeably to the usual acceptation of Sainkhya, umber’. Caritrasitbha Gani, a Jain, in bis gloss on Haribhadra Sari's Saddarsana-samuccave, gives a very interesting account of the origin of the word Sitikhya. He admits the connection of Kapila with the Sainkhya, but adds, chat the school has been so named after the first doctor of the school, Saiikha os Satkba. He observes “teat srftening onfigeatatitvi der 1° and elsewhere “wher afer geet dar desea alent: | arse ar genet eet ay arfegem: 1” The Pasandotpatti Chapter of the Padma Purdina classes Satkha, the law-giver, with Kapila, as Tamasa, Vijfanabhiksu, in his Sarnehya-pravacana-bhasya explains the word Saikhya as signifying the setting forth of the 3 © Invvoduction re, Praketi. Spirit (Purusa) as distinct from the Nat Pral ee SeafeaaH ATEAE TAT’ | : ; funithe Tarkaviglia Bhatt understand, che wore ede painciples, He observes in his SanBhyea silasa fatearaat deaftare | & ses gat set: ler eft stexaegeatt: S108) word Sainkhys to mean * orderly enunciation’ and observes me aoa ae wage ead eet ae aT “seam atek ef Sa orem aaa eae " daquy eagat Prem | at arf BE MEAT a af oe avant The Mahabharata appears to connect the word Sainkhya ith * atnkhyana* which has the sense of saniscantly wih Jnton’ ay cau be seen from the folowing verses, : ; disiple of Sraraiperts ow. ae pork, though an abridgemen' Firthas. This work, though 3” cr has ao onal roma 3, The Saiikhya-pravacan: ajfiznabbikeu. ° 4, The Laghu-siinkhy yeti by Nagoji Bhatia, ot Nak ia u's work. "gn abstract of Vijtanabbik phasya or Sarnthya-bhdisa bY stra-eti, og Lage — " Bhatta Upadhyaya. ‘This aradatta Mifra, or Vitvebv = Deva Tirtba Swami. ae appears to have been Ki Vv. The Raja-sarttike © ‘DASAGUPTA appears to thi nk that IE aja a arikd and this was tl oa 08 Ft | ay one Sai eps Jayant fn bt DODANE which is auoted Py Pmcommeniary by. Raja on the Sry Co 3 8 i ecortip 10 Bhaja The re Gone ascribe Oo Fax mln fom tbe Rajavorta See See aes much im the same manner ss te nya Santa. Thi book ism VIL The Sainkhya-sere ae This is a work of Viti sisteonth cereury A.D. Vi woe en due i of the Saikhya Sra ro hav empted to bring the Sat en the mises jought an disadvantages of atheism. ehat contains very ¢l2 The Sainkhya-Karika VIL. The Sanbhya-tatiy disciple of Vaikuntha. of Vijianabhiksu but of vim, Kelava, son -pradipa, by Kavirdja Yati, This work is similar in nature to that a much inferior value. The Sainbhyarth-tativa-pradipaka, by of Sadinanda, son of Bhatta Kesava also resembles the Sarnkhya-tattoapradipiba Bhatta This work The Matharathasya and the Atreyatantra are two other Satokhya works to which Gunaratna refers, The Atveyatantra might be the Carakasarnhita, also known as the Atreyasainhia or the Atrevatantva, since the sage Atri is the speaker It is doubtful whether the Mavharavriti is identical with the Matharathasya. The Matharavriti which has become available has been studied by BELVALKAR, N. AIYASWAM? SASTRI, TILAK and others. BELVALKAR is of the view that the Matharavrti is the original of the Chinese commentary of Paramarth TILAK does not regard them as identical, a view shared by KEITH and S, SURYANARAYAN SASTRI. UMESHA MISRA after a study of the Gaudapadathasya and the Matharasytti, assigns the Matharayrisi to 1000 A.D. AIYA- SWAMI SASTRI after a study of the Chinese commentary and the Matharanyts comes to the conclusion that the Chinew commentary belongs t0546 A.D. the data of Paramartha and the Mathavavyiti, having aifinities as well as differences with ig, is the borrower and belongs to 1000 A.D. tis later than Satikara for it quotes from his Hastimalakastotra and further the Vriti quotes from the Bkagavatapurava too. Again, the influence of the Vedinta is obvious, a trait to be discove, red in the Satnkhya writers of a later age. Another pointer to its late age is the fact that it comments on the last three Verses of the Kavita. It is also held that the Gaudpadabhasya isan abridgement of the Matharavrti, but this does not appear to be the case in view of the fact that generally Vrttis fallow Bbatyas and secondly in view of the late age of the Mathara- uri, KEITH suggests that MZrharabhaéya is a bhisya on the Sastitantra and not on the Karika, since it hes been described as Sastitantroddhararlipam = Matharahhasyam, AIVASWAML SASTRI pointing out the reliability of the reference to the Mé:harabhasyain the Jaina ‘work Amuogadvarasitra of the 450A. D. holds the view that the Majharabhasya and the crapper B Induction 2 are not 0 be confounded and hae te Maar: Biltna mentioned by the Jain Radi eed anal of dl -ommentary of Paramartha. ee ce lores views one is likely to feel the sol ae ie orate knowledge. iknya Teachers : (4) The Satakhya E ° The Smrtis, the Mahabharata, 1 commentary literature refer now an nk a and the he Stinkhyabarika and ne ghon to many Saizkhya aa each hincers Is guise impzessie ae "eaaealicha, Vindhyavasa, eee — hu, Asita Devala, Sanaka, Sanand = reer Sika, Kebyena, Paralara, tana, Sanatkumara,,Bhrsu aac, Sandtana, Sanatkumdca, 1 Sake, Kaban, © ma, Narada, reife, a Hic, CF ———= Ula, Valmiki Sul alities a limited historical value, for many of ‘th for man} Geatiae : 3 areca hore appear 10 be mythical names and nothing tere capreet i We Fon ees d would enable the student to trace tl ae ier he histo cal development of the doctrine, Some ae chee trans oe Se ner 8 vovtcular or ‘and thus these though ae es a ee cular problem, in actuality jo eae aes rousing our curiosity about them, 2 Seeing oe sy ano Saaiea tf prepared with the Brahmanical ee eal ces, would be highly instructive. a ee ronanimous regarding the Cees Abed oo ee in this list, as for’ inane rey ear oes. Tom: ‘matters worse, some of se_hav a Sed Sot eo a ee held identicMinty prevails about the Very important ames Sancatik evarakrsna Tt-may be said that no ae aaa a be bad about any of these and what aoe SeSat formation about them is to 1EEE s The Stinkhya-Karike Kapila Tradition is both unanimous and of antiquity in ascribing the foundership of the system to Kapila, but it is open to doubt whether Kapila was a historical philosopher. If he were areal sage, at a very early date he had become mythical, tradition producing the necessary mist about him; for he is regarded as the son of Brahma, an avatara of Visnu, an incar~ nation of Agni. The Samkhya being the oldest of the existing systems, the founder would belong to considerable antiquity and Radhakrishnan would place him in the century preceding Buddha. MAX MULLER, COLEBROOKE, KEITH and JACOBI all have doubts about his historicity and its perhaps GARBE alone who thinks him to have been a real person, The Svetaivatara verse ‘fit seg afte weak RAR sta a WHE’ V. 2 which is the frst ention of Kapila is by no means unambi- guous and can well have xeferred to the Hiranyagarbha Sathkara appears to have very ably presented the case against ‘he Sainichyas in bis comments on the BS. [II 1, Itis in the frst place clear that the Kapila referred to isthe Hiranyagarbha and secondly there are known so many Kapilas that it would be difficult to say as to whois actually intended here. The Bhagavadgita knows a sage Kapila as can be seen from its * siddhanam kapilo munih' and also the Samkhya mode of thought, but does not try to reveal any connection between the two, Besides this siddha Kapila, we have on the authority of Baudhayana 2,6, 20,an asura Kapila who instituted the four dramas, another Kapila as the author of the Kapila~ smrti that deals with, sraddha, vivaha etc. and the Padma- purana. Kapila Vasudeva who taught the Sathkhya doctrines to Brahman, Bhrgu and others. The Bkigavatapwrdna 325-1, makes Kapila, son of Devahlti, and an incarnation of Vasudeva. When all this is considered, Svapnedvara’s suggestion that the Sitolehya of Paficaticha has been aetributed to Kapila with a view to winning authority for the doctrine has a shade a plausibility in it. KEITH also makes ‘a similar suggestion when ie is suggested that here we have an artificial connection between a divinity and the doctrine, Introduction Asari: 2 er et ae ‘a historical ee eh the ‘Karka itself. GARBE is not bee a the Mand she Trica porsgaliy and bols im © accept Baars 0 Aurl of the Satapatha Brabmana. Kavis) settee hong ea eka hoa lo fae cafe gal aeTSeT ema sifafaa erat aT qequanseatir ois cal reality to the ‘Kapila-Asuri trac ai Paficasikha ype same as the Asuri of the ‘obability he lived before ficaiil r e dealing with @ psa ws sates Palla is euri, whose student he is * catikha is mentioned after Asuri, beis een a an, 23, son of SSE se i e family of Parasara anc we fiche, oon cal Z bout the Buddha, in the e a Paficagikha moving abou! a e scala we oo co queso hie AO eee ea .d widely known in bis times, but | |26 The Saribhya-Karike commentary on the Samise-sitas as Vijiinabbikew and Bhiviganets appear to suggest. Or was he responsible for ‘the Sastitantya as ISvaraktsa and the Chinese tradition seem fo suggest? ‘The date of Paiicatikha is a matter of discussion, GARBE however, assigns him to the first century A.D. We know the views of Paiicagikha from the few fragments before and ie appears chat he held the theory of the three Gunas, ‘ouarded the Pucusas as atomic in size and held that it was tbe ‘want of discrimination and not works, that was responsible For the connection between the Purasa end che Praktt. Svapnesvara wouldregard Paficaéikha as thoreal founder of the Shtkhya, Kapile's name being brought into zelation with the system for the sake of prestige, just as Manu's name has boon broughe into relation with the Bhrausanha KENTA would not admit the possibility of the Sastitanira a work of 60,000 Slokas according to the Chinese tradition being a work of Paticatikha in view of the evidence to the contrary, from Vacaspati and others, ‘The quotations from Paiicasikha to be met with, in different writings, are the following 1. In the Vyasabhagya the following are met witb, but without the name of Paficatikha. Vacaspati however identifies the author as Paticafiktba, (4) Saat ait enferta aia” | (4°) (2) aneia, Rainferatierr ereeargrart weirs fagremara at stare” 1 (4°24) (2) © amgarserenrrcaesetets sine’ ” (428) (5) 4 saperneaed ar aeanrenedenfisehicr aes Tage sae Heart mT TCATROATA AAT TAS” afage: 1” (2-4) (4) “ghee oe geemsretioean eRe, ga afk Aa” (4) (8) Seat eer age aaftare asad: | FaeeT areatareay wenn, Gas fe R agraalea earrarart ae Miscagsined afteafe 1 (2-92) Introduction (9) eaten Tear qeente Rreemet, eraeTE cata: we ade? (E72) (2) gente (ae) Tn tho Stinkhys Stra we bave (a) rte sr” (ae) # sia at eer * ( ha ) In the Samnbhye Satrabhasya we bave . . (a9) “ae a ancora ie are: STE, Tt 7 E i ea, aA RATATAT SATERT eeren.” | (939) In the Bhimati we have oe ganna hia cafes gasetere as cea heareenreamTeatea SII 9 230) (on SK. 1) and in Mahara (on In Gaugupadabhiisya SK, 22) we have (49) © saftefeererel 4% sar adh godt rh aA GORE aA TET n their Tattvayatharthya- Bhavaganeéa and Haribbadrastri# ane dipana and Sastrasarsasamuccava ascribe the verse Vindbyavise KEITH is of i epdlgavavas. ‘Tradition has practical ane im, Vindbyavasa ism ‘tous e view that there snight have been many ‘a 1 ly made a mess of ts about i costly known through accounts about bi She quotations in literature, 2 The Rajamdrtanda of Bhoja quotes Con Yogasiara, Tv. 23) «6 generat ganaeaeaa,” | 2, Medbatithi, commentator o on I. 55, the view of Vindbyavasa sepenrereraaPaeatea Freee ¢ the Manusmrti quotes ' «gear, sx?te ‘The Sarnkhya-Kariea fa statement that appears to have been based on the Slokavartiea « meqrrrateeg fafiet farcanftar” | 3, The SaddarSonasamuccaya quotes a verse from bim : « gadtsfagendia earieataaa | sat er sifrengunts eee gar” “The Chinese tradition appears to regard Vindhyavasa as the author of the Sarnkhyakrika, while BELVALKAR regards hhim to be the commentator of the same. Vindhyavasa. accord ing to the Chinese account, rewrote a work by Varsagana, and. lived before Vasubandhu. Paramartha suggests that Vindhyavasa was so called because he lived in that mountain and further that he studied the Stinkhya under Varsagana and Composed the Saikhyaséstra, had discussion with Buddha~ uitra, the teacher of Vasubandhu on philosophical matters and was awarded by King Vikramaditya three lakhs of gold coins for his work. Returning’to his grotto, .Vindhyavasa Gied and became’a stone. The Satnkehyaéastra mentioned here fs the Swarnasaptati mentioned by Kouei-ki, TAKAKUSU after examining the question establishes the identity between Vin- dhyavasa and Iévarakrgja, a view which KEITH seems to accept. The work that he abridged was the Sastitantra of Paiicafikha, Because he wasa student of Varsagana, he styled himself as Vérsaganya and-thus it would appear that Vindhya- vasa, Varsaganya, and Ifvarakrsna of the Kautika gotra are one and the same. Svapnetvara informs us that the Karka was the work of Ifvarakrsna Kalidasa. Ghanaiyama, a Commentator of Bhavabbsti's Utiararamacarita suggests that the name of the celebrated poet Kalidasa was Iévarakrsa. ‘According to KEITH the period into which Uvarakrsna_wrote js the period to which the poet Kalidasa belonged. A difficulty would appear to present itself in this identification of Vin-~ Ghyavasa, Isvaralerspa and Kalidasa for their views appear to differ, but if a growth in views is accepted as likely, then it can be got over. It appears from the account given by Balialasena, king of Bengal of 12th century A. D. chat he had available and had consulted the work of Vindhyavasa, while Sriting his Adbhutasagara, Tanusulsharama in bis introduction » Invvoduction the identity between Vindhyavasa fh of the evidence supplied by the the Samyaminamamala and to the Magharavriti accepts jana Vyadi on the strength Tokandaiesa, the Haimakosa and ¢ assigns hiim to the deh century B. C. eceae bt hi wat celebrity Considerable confusion exists about this grea celebrit: Varsaganya’. It is ‘somewhat beyond doubt that he oe aaeeegE the Saiakbya and the Yoga. The following are che The Vyasabhasya quotes « gfaerat arava eBene =f TERT: ’ (9) afore ea and (8) gonai a SE ot efeTESAT gg efi at sears aaeowL” IV. I aio quoted by Vacaspati as coming from Varsasanye “The Tattvokaumoudi on Karika 47 quotes from Varsagaaye (2) cera er? eee IL TE | KEITH suggests the possibility of the * gear to be found in both Gaudapada and Mathara as coming from to perenya, Commentator Balarama express Te Fars aaye yo be the author of the Sastianint. | HIRNARTS Stevateos this question in his “Sasttantra and Varsegeise" (JOR. scans June 1009, pp. 107-112). AIVASWAME SAT Madras Sptaing Chinese accounts im bis Ineroduct gimme Shao sans rae, (pPaivavisa and Vargagaaya and makes him the ‘author of Vindhyari*aiad the commentary thereon. Tt may be ae anya or Varvagana lived by alake in the vicinity of the J eateas where he had his student Tivaralessna Vindhyavasa Vind aspen angled himself as Viragenye to declare Bis discipleship of the master. Jaigigavya ‘The Kirmapuran seudied together, perbaps under the same master .a suggests that Jaigisavya and Paiicasikba ra ‘Yogasitra7 The Sainkhya-Karika II. 54 shows him as a teacher of the Yoga doctrine. Vacaspati on Nyayasttra TI. 243 refers to him as an author of Dharana- Sastra. A’vaghosa's Buddhacarita 1267 makes Aradakalama say that Jaigisavya won liberation through Samkhya and mentions in this very context Janaka and ParaSara as well. Beyond this no information is available about Jaigisavya, Vodbu: Nothing is known about Vodbu. He jis mentioned in the epic as a teacher of Satakhya along with Sana, Sanaka, Sanatana, Sanatkumara and Sanatsujata. WEBER reads Vodbu asa degraded form of Buddha, but without any justification whatsoever. The name of Vodhu appears in the list of the Sirhkhya teachers to whom oblation of water is daily offered after Kapila and Asuri but before Paiicatikha while he is placed even before Asuri in an Atharva Parifigta. KEITH mentions the Chinese tradition as preserved in the translation of the commentary on the Karitds, according to which Garga, Ulka or perhaps Vodbu are placed after Pacasikha but before Varga and Iévarakrsna. Devala: The Mahabharata between Asitadevala and Narada discussing Sithkhyajiiina which is described as holy and securing salvation through the destruction of merit and demerit. Here the five elements, earth, air, water, wind and fire are regarded as the creations of the eight bhittas, bhava, abhava, kala, prthv!, apas, vayu, ‘akaSa and tejas, and kala impelled by bhava. It is held that the senses produce knowledge for the self and are not ther selves the knowers. Following perhaps the Upanisadic line thinking, the order suggested is, that higher and beyond the senses is citta, beyond it the manas, beyond it buddhi and. the highest of allis the Purusa. The eight instruments of knowledge are given as the five jilanendriyas and citta, manas and the buddhi. The Apardrka, a commentary on the Yajmavaleyasmrti contains quotations from Devala which resemble and agree with the Tattvasamasa. According to Kane, Devala would probably belong to some time between the 4th and the 6th centuries. Since he,is regarded as a aaa aL Introduction * comporary of Brhaspati and Katyayere Upaeavina een would 1 Much earlier, before 2nd con Sasret would place him ier, before 2d cme oe that the Mob. frequently eala and B.C. arguing 1p Teed by the dad century B. Co a view oi 7 the epic was Coy convincing. Devala and Ievarakise oT apace a9 bad cops gute clone each OTN oa gs much fo Fopard 2e o ara Pooweentl 3 Jn of the remark from veeereen the two, on the strenst Mahar a ere Te ATH ETAT, AE, TT 30 reciente | ” 84 Not only the list as soon im she no or che word *prabbeti’ even when HX covious, ba gama indeed cannot sss #07 © nological £8. The Rest As bas been obs Matharasrt is vather mn taken with the pete any wide cto xvod eaclor, many of the names i cSankya teachers are Do sentioned in, the To poy canbe onsereained about Chet er—C === historicity, Tht es of the eight sons of Bran aha, contains the nace OF Kour, Kapila, Vodht: and Pada Sanandané, Miho Seniparva. 94067-79)) gives & amie, Tht Cin the SEs Spats, Saat Senay a wh uc, Kapila and Santana, Thee Te rnce dana, Sanatkumsrs ve any of these except the one raferne mation availa oes Sanandana, The others Sanatle nese, inshe Sitio yaya, Daria, Garda; Gautam Gy Bae ya, Poult, HEE. Oe oelvee, Uppur this actual contsibution 0 ope gation ofthe doctrine fs oT “neance,tnerois ngTeason b ii and Sura as pure only. e ener of confect sna ne eead similarly if Paraéara ‘as the Paraéara of the celebrated that can be imal being the teacl mentioned 19 his case ve the same would apply to to do with the Sathya. Ithae is extreme! ee Kausika wo t to Iévaraktsna who according to the : ld refer to Td raktsna who according to th Chinese tradition as preserved in Belonge tothe Kauika family, gotea, SMES (5) The Sarkhya and the Upanigads Though the Sak! iis sl pees » S ‘bkhya is mentioned in a late U; the Senators yet he root ides of the saya ta ‘raced he ste: Upeinds Tho the Chandopsa Vie dt 3 ao logya 1 wet Ofet oF Asecazy, arora: 3c, ares frend ae shes lw sa x Big acl, eae fer a oe wae te wea Che VEE, qatar mes er cf be jeteded sng the cle forthe een so oho th Lr Pa Similarly the Ke ly the Kathopanisad I, 3, 10, plat 3. 10, 11 and I. 3. 1 aPoatoer: sar erat eles at wa 1 . SaaS oer gfeFRATEM TET Fe: REOAEMTTERTT TE | gor a ss ‘8 Feftrear abr ar Gar aa: N Katha. 1-310, areraRY stgeaasBeara ence | oe smrrmrenfa wafer Rercipe Pa TIRT aR should be looked uj oe ea pon as giving us the categori 2 e categories Mi he vrata, and the Pru, wichare nese 17a philosophy. ware ven Again, the very impor ainkhya concept of the Ling im ortant Sainkhya conc Sarita can be traced to the Prafnopanisad VI. 2, VI. 4, VL 5 and VI. 6. where the concept of the Purusa with the sixteen it e Pa loped. One of these inte bal hoor sake Passages asters the existence ee eee arts, the other goes on to ai light, water, earth, the senses, minds od ewes ae ritual, karman, the worlds and ‘he name rece parts are rat my he fabulo cis ther mythological and fabulous # id fe facets nd ate not iden. nen ee Introduction 23 ical with tbose as forming the Lihgaiartra of the saiakhya, Ger itis the idea that is relevant here and pot the details. Te er ibe pointed ovt that the Lingafarira concept does centre may Wipe elements. the senses and the mind that are enunie™ rated here. ‘but forthe eatly history of the Séiokhya, the Se SL Lr that ey aataga] ina a enmecee oma eet after SF ——— —,——_— ‘based know ede inisade. which also postpone ee release of © Te Shan eill the cessation of th ‘che body and the self pan a pearves tbat i is impossible to Sind in te ‘Upanizads Oar rece of che Saiikhya system. but, these 2°e any Teel gore and there which have been developed into ideas sleméyecematic manner by the Saibkbya later on» 1h would appear from the BS. I. 4and Sainkara's commett thereon that the Séiikhyas used to interpret the Upanisadsas any tealThe Sainkhya-Karika supporting them and tried to show that ‘Mahatah param avyaktah param avyaktat purusah parah’ Kathal. 3-1] actually teaches the existence of the Avyakta Pradhana. Similarly the celebrated Svetaivatara TV.5. Ajim ekém etc. was thought to refer to the Prakrti with the chree Gunas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. Again Brhadaranvaka IV. 4.7. *Yasmin paiica Paticajand akataéca pratisthita’ etc. refers to the twenty-five Principles of the Satnkhyas. The later Vedanta and the Satokhyas were both supported by the Upanisads in their theory of the Satkaryavada It would therefore be proper to say with KEITH (p. 60) that there is, in detail, in the Satnkhya little that cannot be found in the Upanisads in some place or other. ‘The Sathkhya - theistic or athei The answer to such @ question, if posed, is by no means an easy one. In the first place when we speak of the Sainkhya school, we have to remember that there are schools within this school and it would therefore not be possible to speale about all the schools at one and the same time. Similarly there is the earlier and the later in the Satikhya school, The ‘Satnkhya in its development up to the times of Vijiiinabhiksu bas own in pretty different channels and has been atheistic, has found itself not quite incompatible with theism as well ac with absolutism or the theory of Brahman. In the Upanisads and in the Bhagavadgita the Saibkhya develops under the supporting patronage of idealistic theism and in the Maha. bharata the Purusa and the Prakrti are regarded not as self. sufficient realities but are viewed upon as modes of one ultimate Brahman. In its classical form, however, the Sazakhya does not support theism. It does not admit any supreme absolute spirit end in is doctrine of Avidya, Bandha and Moksa it is dangerously near Buddhism. To this Sitakthya advocating the theory of evolution, activity on the part of non-sentient Prakrti to satisfy the needs of the sentient Puruga by a sort of pre-established harmony and the release as the consequence of the knowledge of the separateness of the Purusa, God was not necessary. Iévarakrsna appears to think along these lines and theze is no suggestion even in the Kariba pointing toa belief in the existence of a supreme absolute spirit, [t is later | thinkers like Vacaspati, Vi 3 troduction 8 i. }jianabbiksw and Nagefa who br ne Scare Yapunt for eho barony peewee the in God in ap attempt weeds of the Borsa and 12 prove ae ‘de the Prakrti. Sarokara appea Os someone co guide (i vigauikhya of these two epes, in Oe eee nents on Racananupapatti adhik 8 ROS. 2 forthe Ra arse commen sec aeetti, Sule and the Pua tara ‘against the Saubkhyas who admit a ee sae rane anne pacommnupanetsadkaraa £6 nome 2°09 can bh ce Sear and he RESTA 0 tavell “5 Karika before them. white aoa av ara eo Flrarsagatbba, Parasia and ‘he Bhamat ascribes is concerned it is clear that though we doe chink ‘without Him. It is oe be ‘es the release the very object oe at fore, ehat he males fy of che evolues a result Of mutt of the Peak he Sofervenon fot at all neceesry in a ee chan ge and permanence, object and subject, ‘ebeme, Change 8 ith which he imental concepts With and molly ar hs eps tbePrakiand thePaP So far as Tovaraler hhe does not deny God, he does starts and arrives at ¢ ion against the Upanigads (6) The Sarnkhya :a reaction es es i oe Siinkhya is a reaction the oii ht Opomids feis oe ant viele a the main tendency of the GarBE is of against the idealistic panizadsisradically opposed t0 dualism ‘Ashas been already 1 0 Upanis ee eae a free ‘nature of the Purusa, of Pots pei The fact is that the realistic te1 ee u ree all the emphasis pie Se ee Unsoicetore, with two realities, the : ' : ts Wubered further that in the released Matter. Ieis co be remembered furcher 1 = naan gre OEE on is perhaps | on7eifewsion rather than reaction a8 The diversified charact ‘of the Upanigads aracter of the teaching he ctThe Sainkhya-Karika has been admitted on all hands and so also the roots of the Sainkaya have been shown to be existing in the Upanisads. In these circumstances, it would be correct to say that the Sitbkhya is a system based on the Upanisads and not a reaction against i. (7) The Sarikhya-materialistie JACOBt is inclined to regard the Sainkhya as not derived from the speculations of the Upanisads. In his view ivis a philosophy based on materialism. Materialism has in itself ‘slements of popularity as well as elements that promise to solve the riddle of the universe. In India too there was mate- vialism at a very early stage as can be proved from thé evi- dence available from Buddhist and Jaina texts and the early form of this materialism can be seen in the 6th prapathaka of the Chandogva Upanisad where all creation is traced to the three elements, brilliance, water and earth. The Katha and the Svetasvatara Upamsads also appear to take their ideas from adeveloped form of this materialism and it is from these materialistic views that the Sarbkbya has developed. But the Satakhya with its belief in the Spirit cannot be derived from materialism pure and simple and one is inclined to agree with RADHAKRISHNAN when he observes ‘ By its insistence on the absolute reality and independence of spirit, the Saiakhya set itself against all materialist views of mental phenomena. We do not come across any stage of the development of the Satokhya at which it cam be identified with materialism. (p.B11.P.). (8) The Sathkhya Pessimism Teds tru that the Sithkhya declares that misery is of the nature of things, duhham svabhavena, but this need not make ‘one believe that the system is pessimistic, In this respect the Satukbya very much resembles buddhism where also * possi- mism is initial and not fina)’. All evil is due to ignorance and knowledge is the only means that secures ‘certain and final release from the threefold misery. In the matter of securing this permanent release the Vedic Sacrifices are of no use, the Scriptural remedies being linked with impurity, destruction and surpassability. The Satakhya does not describe the state of release in details but that should not make one regard it as oo | Introduction purely nogativ ation of and op acct word, for a perma Tlowsoever the view that rele ‘che Prakgei, may appea fact remains that tl fact seprove the charge of pessimis i y or metapl ee ‘the Samkhya. Pess! fof pessimism pres eal oh joint of shilosophical th oeaa Poin gene. finive exDeHeDCS, 4 philosophical thought can PoE (9) The Satskhys ‘With its initial pessimisn ‘Scriptural religion as @ 5 ies i Sing man oe bel a the constant becoming ef i and the bel parinaminityatva. Saiakhya records ‘of Causation has ch link in DiscHEL identifies each I ponding Samnishy: Linga-sarira, ava with sana aharmast and Bhav anas andthe Bre & tthe ten indriva ‘with Abbinivets an influence opposes this vis Zion about mutual borr iy” belonas£© ve undoob aaah gence that bas a Fadia possi figeentalosontia] ‘ake beeween sake tweed out. The pois ofS Sokthve ‘and Buddhism ha. bi “Thus, the series of the ewe fe. The Sdinkbya does start unt of ‘misery’ but i ont release from this he aim is e fa-and Buddhism + Jy Buddhism; just 2 «atmosphere of philosophic end ‘Wwe Principles. much in common with the fa or Yoga term ant tq and so on SENART #1 e apt a wbolenale ew as he doubts the Ve ‘nal release and this is su! pee aad ‘out by JACOBL aT jth the conside- ‘cis not the final ‘isery is assured. cis the end of the activity of tisfactory, the ficient Tr is extremely doubéful spysics can avoid this element Pm is dhe starting city of ta ought and Mopeimism at 8 ve pre-Buddha period. de the ‘ene rather complicated, In wailed in ancient tthe Buddhist Chain Samkhya evolution. ena a coer JS SES tt acta 1g to him, fesponds £0 Sarnsesti, Sadayatana corres? Fran, TTA he posi of ee Sigg. THOMAS erromantnce of the: The Sainbhya-Kariket ‘tihkhya with these technical tecms when the chain was formulated. PISCHEL is supported by JACOBI and SCHYER. ‘The precise meaning and import of the Chain is a matter of discussion, yet it is clear that in the Siikhya evolution we Rave cosmogony, the genesis of the universe while in the Buddhist Chain we have the genesis of the individual, OLDENBERG thinks that the concept of the Tathagata, a Hberated one, implies an absolutizing of individual being is “ery much similar to the Sarhichya concept of the Kaivalya, The idea that disassociation from any contact with the world of change leads to release from pain is common to both the systems, As GARBE and JACOBI have pointed out, it is clear that the Sitbkhya is eariler and there are references in the Buddhist literature, the eighth view mentioned in the Brahmajalasutta (Digha, 1. 1), Buddhacarita, XIL. 17. ff. which in all probability, are to the Sathkhya. There are differences as Well which cannot be ignored, for the Samnkhya believes in the Spirit, the Nature and the three Gunas as distinct from the Spirit. Both the thoughts, the Sathya and Buddhisin are in some measure based on the Upanisads, The Upanisads have four central concepts, the Absolute, the Spirit, the Nature and the Mental states and out of these the Siiakhya admits the three without the Absolute, while the Buddhisin admits only the last. The views that matter is foreign to the spirit. Parinamavada, the concept of the plurality of selves, the Lingaactza are ideas which appear in Jainism too. ‘The best ‘way appears to think that all these are thoughts that deve. loped in opporition to as well as in relation with each other, out of the Upanisads, laying stress on this or that aspect (10) The Sai bkhya ~ central teaching : Reality is twofold-Prakrti and Pursusa, matter and spirit, The Prakrti is one yet mutable and evolves the world out of itself and reabsorbs at the time of the destruction of the uni- verse. The Purusas are many, pure, changeless, ‘The matter is made of three qualities, the Sattva, Rajas and Tamas which in themselves are ever active in collaboration with each other, It is they who act, and these act for the purpose of the release of the Spirit. The Matter is inanimate yet it func- tions for the good of the Spirit just as water and milk do func- : presented. the mind and the 29 Introduction tion for the nourishment and benefit of the people and the mnt a it of the on fos r r! sence of the Spirit ‘by, ae ee or ia ae ke the latter evolve, by dist eo eee pean ticuents. The world is on eee poise of the comvjcal organs, the intellect, in ieduaton, and erate @ Spit identifies itself with the old Sena ‘t wins salvation. It is, there rhe Spirit to know its nature. ace ae aa ‘to be in a bodily peer nen irene esr ae a eee .d as the principal opponent oe alla by the Advaita Vedanta a1 rae Painter thing criticism at cheir aaa A reerette come a 2 and the comments of Sams poe sotbe BS, TL 210, ae sven ths conte, The Pra mE TEhenires consent Satta, Raja and Te = ve ause of the universe forit 1s sentient eo Be ee krti is acetana, then design and eS pe aed found aa universe cannot be explainé a Te i somenents found itt ard Sattva, Rajas and Tamas ae ae of Prakrti, to account for the cap: cee eee jerere painand infatuation, for ee er ee ese d and are internal. Tf tahoe ee Delong £0 seus chreo qualides beng parnita a0 TOE Be pro. 7 the part of an acetané hee Peat at oduce anything. * Milk an¢ Cea tobe able 40 Pec ehe point to illetate che activity Of 28 ae not aut ee love of the mother cow and tbe Lon ars she free tele tng inferet, wating, the ewok ae Jace or may not take place. | may take Bis leis also ot & proper ana tusery and 3 mieeTpat nothing belongs to ha fore, essential for t2 The Sainkhya-Kayiha grass eaten by a cow only that is so transformed, it is not a ‘Svabhavika parinama, Nor is any prayojana to be seen for this activity of the acetana Prakrti, The non-sentient Prakrti and the indifferent Parusa cannot have any desire or curiosity to be satisfied. No enjoyment is possible for the ever free and the indifferent Spirit. Liberation being the natural state cannot be the aim of this activity. The analogy of the blind and the Jame also cannot explain the activity on the part of the acetana Prakrti and the indifferent Puruga, for in the case of the blind and the lame; both of them are cetana, The proxi. ity of the two, Prakrti and the Purusa cannot be the cause for it being eternal, would make evolution eternal. It is not quite clear as to why the qualities in the state of equipoise should lose that balance and get disturbed. The Vedantin Ainally argues that the First Cause must have Caitanya and so long as this is not admitted the creation will not be adequately explained, ‘Thus examined, enjoyment, bondage, release of the Purusa and the evolution of ‘the non-intelligent Prakrei remain unintelligible inspite of all the analogies that the Sainkhyas have given in an endeavour to explain and establish their position. (12) Isvaralergna, author of the Sathbhyakarika ‘TAKAKUSU and KEITH have accepted the identity between Vindbyavésa and [varaktma and Seapnedvara informs us that ISvarakrsna Kalidasa wrote the Karka, We have also Ghanaéyame informing us that the name of the author of the literary works, the Raghuamnia, Sakuntala, Kumarasambhava was [Svarakrsqa Bhatrmigha. [fall these suggestions are. put together, ISvarakrma appears to have the great poet Kalidasa who lived in the times of and at the court of the great Samudragupta. A critical study of the Karikas leaves on one's mind the impression that the author is more a poet than @ Philosopher. Towards the close of the Karikis, after having explained the doctrinal Samkhya in the first part, Ifvarakrsna appears to be in a very happy mood, relaxes and releases himself fully. He is in this latcer part of the Karikis, more charming than accurate, more poetic than philosaphical, In the first part of the Karikas his style is terse, compressed and © Introduction | argumentative, 31 ‘tadvipanta” and the argu ‘of philosophical literature. je is poetical and illustrative: es 59, 60, 61,65. Se yoetry in which he indulges, ae ee ae seg nonseatie it nor the eae ie he does noe apes ant oth ofthese tobe, To te Dot, Oe asthe Sankhyas operat bave a coumic seniSeane™ Seald exp fakhya Doctrine. : ae to note that the Yukeidtpig ern cost kas Iovarakrgua as Bhagavan 16 ene a ‘a Satrakara. Inits treatment othe es so many Sotras as for inst abounding ia lative, chart ‘mentative a a But in the latter part his sty! It is interesting the author of the Kas “and also describes je treats them as eae Dhedandm parimanat or z dranamastyavYata 3 regards the Saiakbya. “earanamasty ore,’ The Yuktidipika regards the 2000 eet ee ease a Sot woken wach Peake ot nich in their turn consist of cof pis scheme, the topi consideration. The arrange ‘Yuktidipika is Siaoves _— Bene »-vicdra. “we i Apavarga-vicd , : i Apavarga-Upaya- i Karya-vicara. i. Pradhana~ siddbi- u _ Puruga-vicara. ‘i Karana-vicara. uh i Karana-vrtti . i Karana-visayab. ie Parinama-vicara, ™ 5 Sarira-viedra “Apavarga-svabbava no other nt e ement which rete ommentary ‘on the Sithkhyakérikas 6 rea we DS iso takes special pains to poi Canes oe pa is a‘ tantra” work and posses at meeeThe Sainkhya-Karika describes in the verse: siitra-pramaga-avayava-upapattila anytinata saindaya-nirtayoktib/uddeta-nirdesamanukramasea saihjSopadeSaviha tantrasaiapat. after having pointed out in the introduction how the Kirikas do contain all that is very necessary, the | Yuktidipika concludes its commentary on the 72nd Rarika thus: na ca asya’ mUlakanakapindasyeva svalpamapi dosajatamasti, (13) Missing and interpolated Karileds : The Sainthyakdrika is, as a trustworthy tradition Paramartha and Gaudapada assert, aSaptati, thatis a work of 70 Yerses, Vasubandhu is reported to have written his Parama- rthasaptati in imitation of and with a view to refuting the Swarnasaptati of Isvarakzina. Gaudapida comments on 69 Netses only, the last verse that he comments on being * Puru- Siithajbanamidam" etc. and yet closes his comments with (yatraitab saptatib arya bhasyam catra Gaudapadakream.’ Gaudapada does not comment on the remaining verses that are usually included in the Samnehyakarika, ie, verses 70, 71, 72and 73. The problem therefore, arises as to which are the 70 verses that form the original Saptati which Gaudapada had before him. The evidence regarding the authenticity of these verses is conflicting and confounding so as to render a judgment difficult. Scholars have in this matter expressed widely differing opinions WILSON and TILAK noticed the discrepancy in Gauga- Padabhasya and TILAK tried to reconstruct the Jost arya from the pratikas to be collected from the comments of Gaudapada on verse 61. The words etab saptatih would clearly suggest that the lost arya must be before the 69th on which Gauda- Pada comments and cannot be located afterit. The comments of Gaudapada on 61are not quite relevant to the verse being commented upon but appear to be a mix up of com ments on two different verses, perhaps the comments on 61 and on the lost drya, The last verses on which Gaudapada does not comment need not be considered in this context, for these really form the upasainhira. ‘The Karika reconstructed by TILAK runs as follows : sromniads gat ard ot ereard aT ser we fade eae: es: cra 1 33 Introduction “Tax discussed cis problem in Sanskrit Research (Vol 1,Partll pp. 107-117 ) and expressed ie views about chit Ihr tra, He made only one change by replacing the word bravate by purura inthe arya fst suggested by him Some chase delberacely cropped out hit EBCKE cor is atheism Fe Tita is woyport by Hak DUrTA SHARMA, TN. Atvasvastt Sastat ( Inuroduction p. xii) is of hw eae sw Kaka Rapa sansa vam ee ity is ae genuine since it hae not been sransiated Sy Pocemareha, foneber Kiva “Shaparampeara st i inerodaced with‘ some wise man has observed’ in Chinese commentary waned by Paramartha, hence deserves tobe Steve hs ald leave us with 70 verses, The wese 7, ince Fe en ae eapoled inthe Suinkhyakavka blo Egan cones wo China in 545 A.D. The verse dhows hat the author had a personal knowledge of he Sagan inall probability be was the commentator ines According to S. SURYANARAYANA SASTRI both se verses 12 -Sapeatyin note and 73" Temieamfeadrian ae adaions ma ance chat the Harika comstred_ an ene EERTSR were ace a mere pakarata, The orginal work vv onded with verse 71 whichis 70 according to the casein gion, Verse 63, not to be found in the Chinese ver Ghimean be leitimarsly regarded as a later interpolation, Nor only is i absent in the Chinese version, but it dors not Ma eating new to ost nosed of the Saukya, doctrine ot even without ie the transition from verse 62 £064 would ae even. If indeed a verse has beea lost and the claims o te emeher verse are to be considered for inclusion, then a Tee Sn verse 45) of the Moktalrika, as coming from a sary on vert and in aya metre does deserve some conside- ‘on, It.zuns as under : : on ee eee, ERI ae sft eatenar oa a gat Sas a eT AU34 The Sainthya-Karika But any conclusion regarding the verse 63 is rendered difficult by the fact that it has been commented upon by Gaudapada and also is found in Sitikhya Sitra III. 73, TILAK and TAKAKUSU, therefore, would regard its non inclusion by the Chinese version as an Evident error. UDAYAVIRA SaSTRI would like to argue that as a matter of fact no verse has been lost. A Saptati need aot be, necessarily, a work of 70 verses only and it can have either 72 verses or even 69 verses. Undue importance need not be ‘attached co the title for there are instances where a Sataka has verses more or less than 100,as for instance the AryiSataka of Abbinavagupta has 105 verses in it. The fact, therefore, may be that there is no lost Karika at all. Whatever may be the fact about other Satakas and Saptatis not containing the number indicated by the title, it is dificult to accept the suggestion made by UDAYAVIRA SASTRI in respect of the Samkhyakarikas in view of the evidence of Peramartha, Gaudapada, and Vasubandha who indicate the existence of 70 Karikas in the work. Similarly it is also difficult to accept the suggestion of TILAK and SHARMA ‘that there is a confusion and a mix-up in the comments on verse 61, and that this has been due to the fact that a Karika has been dropped but the bhasya has been allowed to remain, If the bhisya on verse 61 is critically studied, it would appear that there is no confusion in the said bhasya and what we have isa properly knit unit. The commentary opens with ‘loke prakrteh sukumarataram na kisicid etc.’ and closes with ‘atab prakrteb sukumarataram subhogyataram na kihcid etc.” and from this circumstance it would be clear that in between there cannot be any portion of a commentary on some other verse. [tis also difficult to believe that such a confusion is to be seen in all the commentaries-Gaudapadathaisya, Jayamaigala and the Matharavriti. The circumstance that Paramiztha isin agreement with these commentaries strengthens such a view. ‘The matter, which is regarded as ircelevant, is indeed very relevant here, for it establishes the thesis that Prakrti is the cause and that nothing else can be the cause. Thus after all it may be no Karika hvs beon lost. In the present state of our knowledge it would be unsafe to try to fll up gaps in the Karikas or to find out the interpolated verses, sredpacHeasotin- HET HT RT: arora Pearse: airvitare a sierra Ranta seat A | serevareaternry afte Gar areUTTT arora we MeIRREIARETTER! cre Rreaigara waretse eae i grasa fararenf ssa safer Bat ae arsaral SremreareaeacIsHraa | au rar ( Haft ) 4 exeerar: gorse efi Bai fee ar (BH) arash A, 4, CoRETETT raat / cea | rear eater aie P| KE HT SEE safirat art | ea — awe aaeqat” I ana aftadta aig: caiteesat | (GR es Gat: BH TTT AEE ; ara ged Heated Ata cia see: wae courant Pagramrars TERS ATT 1 gear araregesertt Af! opt aT | afiaes adieerhe Ta st gafit marerrasie Sareea ren, aaa ereaTaT TRTSAML| AT ATT gatafecenit aa ware a8! adh gdh Pratt aft get TA 4, apemeTNTRa; ToT paoagievar. —¥. Peart!The Savnthya-Kavika a feeang:—greasenrraren Sareea a sxfedtoen, nfs Sf eae atacand, mee a of Sat rte sausterate | ared faster 1 safeties cafe agrresznrtartennsfsrg Semmneanted supercedes: egret == torent am’, Raat ara Taf ae Tard —achorareanteraaranten, |i vee fafearenfaang | a ar gersarfiemare Psrar ater Balt sex geaaaes fi a Roe | eB arsaal aq Bh wer a geaarfiarat or fe ca aaromfaeey feferent engiearaPirer "pment share gfersnarenterntefie Pra erage? weet tatfersino aD wowed See a comeaT ranaraaisMrary tat waradsad seca feed aa Sager eaftenct a aale 1 ae ah rem Br oe ay varcicaeartieras Rey Fage Buagya H lomage to that Kapila who, feo who, out of compassi bya philosophy to serve ae a boat for the Puree of crossing the ocean of i crossing of ignorance in which the world was the For the benefit of the ett of the students, I will compend explain tis doctrine given fn thie shor tad clear wostee rests on authority and which arrives ions with wiih sso a at conclusions with : ee misery etc. This ary is being introduced be divine sage Sn i ie Kapila was the son of Brahinan, As it “ Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanat a, Sanitana the thi i Kapil Veda sod Padcalkta—these rea eareage eats 1e sons of Brahman. Great sais are said 40 be 1. Pe aghae agora 2 ae-eghraanftids 1 Siaeet 37 Verse T Kapila bad right from the bireh, the qualities that, SOP port afin him, Virtue, Knowledge, Renunciation and Pore, orn wowed with cbse qualites, seeing this world sinkPe Bore ecofound darkness and the succossion of world cycles, in eee i death, bo became filled with compassion and ‘taught vere knowledge of twenty-five principles to the brahmin Fe ene bis own family—knowledge from which proceeds ‘the destruction of pain. ceThere can be no doubt in tbis thar a knower of te ewenty-five principles, in whatever order of life be may be ree echer he wear braided hair, a top-knot, only, o© be an per berated from existence.” So itis sald: inaviey Saas Uptiguced on account ofthe action by the eros, Seat misery. The three kinds of misery are: ineern) external fol eine, The internal, again, i ewofold: bodily ans mental. ana se sey ifover,dysontery and the rest that arise fom the Feeder of wind, bile or phlegm; mental misery is sonarso 0s Geer Ghat is dear and union with tbat which is wot liked se Tho external misery is due to fourfold living bs: ane lyiviparous, oviparous born of sweat and born of soil, arises ings viv porgta, door birds, serpents, gnats, mesauitoes ices ager alligators sharks, unsioving objects like ess, S00 and ae eve pe divine misery isso called because it, belongs X9 Tee ius or comes from heaven, that which arises from these,- he Bo oF orm, rain, thunderbolt and the rest. This, oh ca peat dhe aflctioa from this threefold misery, inary is account Go, Tnto what? Into the means for its removal, Into to Pe Thich is the means of removing that threefold misery. cfg thet Bid chat on account of the existence of the ovident mate itis hairy ie moaningless—if zt is argued that che micas that gp inaltbe chroofold misery are known and hence this inquiry sea thus, for instance, for the removal of the rwofold # eeetl misery, the internal moans of the form of the trast internal Joading to the medical scienco, union with the det a cc uad precitsion of the undesirable, ebe pangene tte desirable ont decoctious and the like are readily available and and aattiogeny otection and the like are the evident means foe see oerserai of the external misery. So if you chink that those neans being evident the inquiry is useless. we have to #87, no-