Chapter XXXI. Dharmashastra and Sānkhya

Volume V: Part II pp. 1352–1384

Chapter XXXI. Dharmashastra and Sānkhya

Sāṅkhya is one of the well-known six darśanas (philosophical points of view).

Śaṅkarācārya in his bhāṣya ¹ on V. S. II. 2. 17 says that Manu and others who who were deeply versed in the Veda took up to some extent in their works the doctrine of pradhāna being the cause of the world with the idea of relying on that part of its doctrine viz. the effect is (already) existent in the cause. Similarly, on V. S. I. 4. 28 he says that great effort was made by the Sūtrakāra and himself for refuting the doctrines of the Sāṅkhya system (and not for the refutation of the theory of atoms being the cause of the world), since the Sāṅkhya system is near to the Vedānta as it accepts the view of the non-differ-ence of cause and effect and as some Dharmasūtra writers like Devala have had resort to it in their workṣ On V. S. II. 1. 3 Śaṅkarācārya remarks that, though there are many smṛtis dealing with metaphysical topics, great effort was made for the refutation of Sāṅkhya and Yoga only, since the two systems are well-known in the world as means of securing the highest goal of man, as they have been accepted by śiṣṭas (respectable and learned people) and are supported by Vedic indications in their favour (as in Svetāśvatara Up. 'tat-kāraṇam sāṅkhyayogābhi-pannam' VI. 13). It would be shown later on that Manu and Devala rely on and propound (some) Sāṅkhya doctrineṣ It would not be irrelevant to say a few words about the origin and development of the Sāṁkhya systeṃ This (rise of Sāṁkhya) is one of the most difficult problems in Indian philosophy. A good many works and papers have been written on the Sāṁkhya systeṃ²²⁰⁹ As to what the original Sāṁkhya teaching revised in the Sāṁkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa was, no generally accepted answer can be giveṇ From the 5th century A. D. at least the Sāṁkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa has been regarded as the foremost exponent of the Sāṁkhya. The Sāṁkhyakārikā and a commentary on it were translated into Chinese about 546 A. D. by Paramārtha, originally a brāhmaṇa of Bhāradvāja gotra and a śramaṇa from Ujjayinī (vide BEFEO, 1904, p. 60). Śaṅkarācārya on V. S. I. 4. 11 quotes the whole of the 3rd verse of the Sāṁkhyakārikā and the first quarter of it on V. S. I. 4. 8. But the Sāṁkhya system, it appears, went through several phaseṣ Chinese sources say that there were eighteen Sāṁkhya schools (p. 2 of Johnston's “Early Sāṁkhya,” quoting Takakusu in BEFEO, 1904, p. 58).

There is the Sāṁkhyasūtra or Sāṁkhyapravacanasūtra attributed to Kapila (published with two commentaries viz. that of Aniruddha and parts of the Ṭīkā of Vedāntin Mahādeva edited by Garbe in B. I. Series 1881). This is a late work composed about 1400 A. D. as shown by Garbe in his Introductioṇ Fitz-Edward Hall in his learned Introduction to the edition of the Sāṁkhyapravacana-bhāṣya (B. I. Series, 1856). There is an edition of 23 sūtras called Tattvasamāsa with a commentary called Kramadīpikā in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit series which has also published several other brief late works that are passed over here. Several commentaries on the Sāṁkhyakārikā have been publisheḍ The earliest appears to be the one translated into Chinese by Paramārtha about 546 A. D., which has been reconstructed into Sanskrit from the Chinese by the learned Pandit Aiyaswami Sastri and published (in 1944) in the Sri. Venkatesvara Oriental Series with a valuable Introduction; another commentary styled Māṭharavṛtti was published (in 1922) in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Serieṣ Dr. Belvalkar (in ABORI vol. V. pp. 133–161) contributed a long and scholarly paper on the Māṭharavṛtti in which he holds that the Māṭharavṛtti is the original of the commentary translated into Chinese by Paramārtha together with some accretions made from time to time, that Gauḍapāda's commentary is a simplified abridgment of the Māṭharavṛtti (p. 148), that the Māṭharavṛtti cannot be placed later than 450 A. D. (p. 155) and that Īśvarakṛṣṇa cannot be assigned to a date later than 250 A. D. (p. 168). Prof. A. B. Keith in ‘Sāṅkhya system’ (p. 51) places Īśvarakṛṣṇa at a date not later than 325 A. D. Another early commentary is the Yuktidīpikā of an unnamed author edited from a single mṣ by Shri Pulinabehari Chakravarti in Calcutta Sanskrit Series (1938). This is a very valuable commentary and has been very competently edited even from a single ms, though there are a few gaps here and there. That commentary is replete with quotations and polemical discussions, mentions several Sāṅkhya teachers who differed among themselves and whose opinions are cited on many topicṣ For example, vide under Vindhyavāsin below. It mentions some ācāryas that are hardly ever mentioned in any Sāṅkhya work. It frequently cites an author called Pañcādhikaraṇa (vide pp. 6, 108, 114, 132, 144, 147, 148 where two Āryās apparently of Pañcādhikaraṇa are quoted). Another hitherto unknown Sāṅkhyācārya mentioned by this coṃ is Paurika on p. 169 and p. 175, who holds the surprising view ³ that there is a separate pravṛttihāna for each Puruṣa. Patañjali is frequently mentioned on pp. 32 (who denied the existence of Ahaṅkāra), 108, 132 (there are 12 karaṇas and not 13 as S. Kārikā in verse 32 asserts), 145, 149, 175; Vārsagaṇaḥ (in the plural) are mentioned on pp. 39, 67, 95, 102, 133, 145, 170; Vārsagaṇa (pp. 6, 108) and Vārsagaṇāvīra (on pp. 72, 108, 175) styled bhagavān on p. 72 and Vīrsagaṇāvīra (on p. 103 probably meaning ‘the son of Vṛṣagaṇa ’); all these refer to the views of Vārsagaṇaṣ Pāñcaśikha (p. 31 in the plural, p. 61, p. 175) is mentioned and one passage which is quoted in the Vyāsa-bhāṣya (on Y. S. I. 4) and ascribed to Pāñcaśikha by Vācaspati is quoted by the Yuktidīpikā on p. 41 as Śāstra. From pp. 113 and 129 it appears that the author of the coṃ was a Vedāntiṇ²¹¹ It is probable that he flourished between 500 and 700 A. D., since he quotes (on p, 39) Dinnāga’s definition of ‘pratyakṣa’ and is not cited by Vācaspati and other commentators on the Sāṅkhya.

Gauḍapāda composed a commentary on the S. Kārikā but only on 69 verses published in the Ch. S. Serieṣ The Commentary called Sāṅkhyatattvakaumudī by the famous writer Vācaspati-miśra was published in the Chowkhamba S. S. in 1919. A commentary called Jayamaṅgalā ascribed to Śaṅkarācārya (in the colophon) on the S. Kārikā was published at Calcutta in 1933 by Sri H. Sarma with a brief but interesting Introduction by Principal Gopinatha Kaviraj (vide also I. H. Q. vol. V. pp. 417-431) where Sri H. Sarma tries to prove that the Jayamaṅgalā is earlier than Vācaspatimiśra. Vijñānabhikṣu composed (about 1550 A. D.) a bhāṣya on the Sāṅkhyapravacanasūtra. The Sūtrakāra and Vijñānabhikṣu make efforts to establish the impossible thesis that the teachings of the Sāṅkhya system are not in irreconcilable conflict with the doctrine of a personal God or with the Advaita Vedānta. The Mātharavṛtti on S. Kārikā 71 furnishes the names of certain teachers that flourished between Pāñcaśikha and Īśvarakṛṣṇa viz. Bhārgava, Ulūka (Kauśika ?), Vālmīki, Hārīta, Devala and others, while the Jayamaṅgalā mentions Garga and Gautama as Sāṅkhya teachers after Pāñcaśikha (vide note one in Paṇḍit Aiyaswami’s edition on p. 99). The Sanskrit commentary reconstructed from the Chinese version of Paramārtha (p. 98 of Paṇḍit Aiyaswami’s edition) states that the line of teachers and pupils from Pañcaśikha is : Pañcaśikha-Gārgya-Ulūka-Vārṣagaṇa-Īśvarakṛṣṇa. It is clear from the above that several teachers, in any case not less than five or six, intervened between Pañcaśikha and Īśvarakṛṣṇa. From a somewhat mutilated passage⁵ of the Yuktidīpikā (p. 175) it appears that at least ten persons intervened between Pañcaśikha and Īśvarakṛṣṇa. If this be accepted and if Īśvarakṛṣṇa be assigned to about 250 A. D., then Pañcaśikha cannot be placed later than the first century B. C. and may be much earlier still. On ‘tena ca bahudhā kṛtam tantram’ (S. Kārikā 70) the Yuktidīpikā speaks of bhagavat Pañcaśikha as ‘daśama-kumāra’ (tenth son of Prajāpati ?) and states that he expounded the śāstra to many persons such as Janaka and Vasiṣṭha and thereby identifies Pañcaśikha with the teacher Pañcaśikha mentioned by the Śāntiparva (vide note 2186 below).

Vācaspatimiśra in his commentary on the Yogasūtrabhaṣya (II. 23) sets out eight alternative views among Sāṅkhya writers on the question of ‘darśana’ and ‘adarśana’ and remarks that the fourth out of the eight alternatives is the real doctrine of the Sāṅkhyaśāstra.⁶ From about the 5th century A. D. the Sāṅkhyakārikā has been regarded as the standard work on the Sāṅkhya systeṃ The S. Kārikā itself states that the holy śāstra was expounded by Kapilamuni to Āsuri, who expounded⁷ it to Pañcaśikha and the latter expounded the (Sāṅkhya) system to several disciples and that it came down to Īśvarakṛṣṇa in a succession of teachers and disciples, who summarised it in Ārya verseṣ Kapila-muni is here said to be the first promulgator of the Sānkhya.

Before proceeding further the most characteristic and fundamental conceptions of the standard Sānkhya must be set out. The most fundamental conception is that there are two entirely distinct essences existing from eternity, viz. prakṛti (i. e. nature or matter) also called pradhāna and avyakta, and puruṣa (soul or spirit, the knowing subject). The 2nd fundamental conception is that puruṣas are many. Another most characteristic feature of the Sānkhya system is the doctrine of three ⁸ guṇas (factors) called sattva (light, intelligent), rajas (energetic, active, domineering), tamas (coarse, inert, enveloping, dark). Pradhāna or prakṛti or avyakta is said to be constituted by the three guṇas (triguṇātmaka) when they are in equilibrium (Sattvarajastamasām sāmyāvasthā). The Sānkhya analysed all physical and mental phenomena. The lowest factor is the heavy impenetrable matter and coarse foolish impulseṣ They are called tamas (described as guru, heavy and varaṇaka, enveloping). Then there is the factor of constant change in the physical world as well as in the mental. This is called rajas (cala, changing and upaṣṭambhaka, exciting, as the S. Kārikā puts it). The third factor or element in the world is the varied operation of consciousness that leads to knowledge and experi-ence, which is called Sattva (laghu, light as opposed to the coarse, merely material objects and prakāśaka, luminous, as contrasted with tamas). These three factors or elements combine in various proportions and make up the evolving universe. The three are called guṇas from several points of view viz. they are qualities, they also bind as with a rope the Puruṣa to saṃsāra. The basis of the universe is to be found in the guṇas. Pradhāna is not different from the guṇas, but it is only the name of the primordial matter before evolution startṣ Prakṛti being anādi and eternal, the Sāṅkhya system did not postulate God as creator, and held God to be a superfluity. The Sāṅkhya propounds a theory of cosmic evolution which is practically as reasonable as any modern theory of evolutioṇ It is probably the earliest attempt to furnish an answer from reason alone to the questions about the origin of the world, about the nature of man and his relation to the physical world and man's future destiny. In the nineteenth century mind and matter were held to be entirely different and atoms were supposed to be indivisible. Modern physics has reduced matter to energy but the nature of this last also is a mystery. Under the Sāṅkhya system, puruṣa or prakṛti or both serve no religious purpose. There is no definite or convincing answer as to why puruṣa becomes entangled in the web of prakṛti. The Sāṅkhya simply says that as a result of non-discrimination puruṣa somehow becomes entangleḍ The Vedāntasūtra refers to pradhāna as smārta in I. 2. 19 and as 'anumānika' in I. 4. 1. From Prakṛti evolves mahān (i. e. buddhi, consciousness) from which arises ahaṅkāra, from which evolve on the one hand the five tanmātras (subtle elements, viz. sabda, sparśa, gandha, rasa, rūpa) and on the other hand manas (mind) and the ten indriyas (sense organs). From the five subtle elements are evolved the five great elements, earth, water, tejas, vāyu and ākāśa (ether). These are twentyfour⁹ tattvas (categories) and puruṣa is 25th. Pradhāna is distinct from puruṣa and serves the purpose of puruṣa (who is passive and a sākṣī) who is distinct from the evolutes of prakṛti and is bhoktṛ (and not kartṛ?). The Sāṅkhya¹² does not admit Goḍ Prakṛti and puruṣa come together in order that the latter may see its working; just as a blind man and a cripple (a lame man) may come together (and the blind man may carry the lame man on his shoulder, the latter showing the way and both may reach their destination by this joint effort). ¹³ When puruṣa realizes the difference between himself ¹⁴ and the guṇas constituting Prakṛti he is liberateḍ Both Sāṅkhya and Yoga treat the external world as real. They both postulate plurality of souls (puruṣas), that are eternal and unchanging. This latter is one of the most crucial differences between Sāṅkhya and advaita Vedānta. It is not necessary for our purpose in this chapter to go into greater detailṣ One more doctrine of the Sāṅkhya is called satkāryavāda i. e. the theory that the effect already exists in the cause and does not arise from nothing (S. Kārikā, verse 9); compare Chāṅ. Up. VI. 2. 2 (kathamasataḥ sajjāyeta) and Gītā II. 16 (nāsato vidyate bhāvo).

It is difficult to assign a definite date to the Sāṅkhya-kārikā. As Paramārtha translated the Kārikā as well as com- mentary on it into Chinese in about 546 A. D. the Kārikā cannot in any case be placed later than about 250-300 A. D. It may be earlier by a few centurieṣ Umbeka in his commen- tary on the Ślokavārtika of Kumārila mentions an author called Mādhava as ‘Sāṅkhyanāyaka’ and Yuan Chwang also refers to a Sāṅkhya teacher called Mādhava. Dr. Raghavan in ‘Sarūpa-Bhāratī’ (pp. 162–164) shows that Mādhava was really a destructive critic of Sāṅkhya, that the proper reading is ‘Sāṅkhyanāśaka-Mādhava’ and that he was probably earlier than even Dinnāga and Dharmakīrti (i. e. earlier than 500 A. D.).

Śaṅkarācārya in the passage quoted in ṇ 2208 remarks that certain Upaniṣad passages may be relied upon as apparently supporting the Sāṅkhya systeṃ Some of the Upaniṣad passages that either foreshadow Sāṅkhya doctrines or employ words that have technical meanings in the Sāṅkhya system would be cited ¹⁵ But one passage from the Atharvaveda X. 8. 43 deserves notice, viz. 'the knowers of Brahma know that yakṣa endowed with ātman which abides in the lotus with nine gates (the physical body) covered by three guṇaṣ' With this may be compared Śv. Up. III. 18 and Gītā V. 13 (navadvāre pure dehi). The Muṇḍaka Up. states 'From Him are born prāṇa, mind, all indriyas, the five elements, and sky, wind, jyotis (tejas), waters and the earth.' The Katha Up. refers to indriyas, the objects of senses, mind, buddhi, mahān, avyakta, puruṣa as a rising series, similar to that of the Sāṅkhya with one exception viz. the Up. does not mention ahaṅkāra and holds that buddhi and mahān are different, while the official Sāṅkhya identifies theṃ It is, therefore, clear that the evolution in these two Upaniṣads is very similar to the theory of evolution stated by the classical Sāṅkhya, the only difference being that the Upa- niṣads postulate a supreme Creator (that produces the cosmos) while Sāṅkhya drops the creator and accepts the evolutionary series only. On V. S. I. 2. 12 Śaṅkarācārya cites the verse 'dvā suparṇā sayujā' (which is Muṇḍaka Up. III. 1. 1, Śv. Up. III. 1 and also Rg. I. 164. 20) and explains it, as referring to the individual self (jīva) and the Highest Spirit (paramātman). The ācārya then mentions the argument of a predecessor who relies upon Paiṅgirahasya- brāhmaṇa where the latter half of the verse is explained as mentioning sattva (buddhi) and kṣetrajña (I. e. the individual self). This indicates that some took that verse as putting forward Sāṅkhya ideaṣ The Katha Up. III. 4 states that the description of the individual soul as the enjoyer (bhoktṛ) results from the union of the ātman with organs of sense and the minḍ The Śvetāśvataropaniṣad expressly ²¹²¹ refers to Sāṅkhya and Yoga (in VI. 13) and says that 'on realizing that cause which can be apprehended by means of the study of Sāṅkhya and Yoga he is released from all bonds'. That Upaniṣad is full of words that are frequently employed in the Sāṅkhya system such as ‘ avyakta ‘ (I 8), guṇa ( V. 7 ‘sa viśvarūpas-triguṇaḥ’ and VI. 2, 4 and 16), jña (v. 2, VI. 17), prakṛti (‘māyām tu prakṛtim vidyāt’ IV. 10), puruṣa (I. 2, III. 12, 13, IV. 7), pradhāna (1, 10, VI 10 and 16), liṅga (I. 13, VI. 9). The Śv. Up. (VI. 11) describes the one God as ‘ sākṣī cetā kevalo nirguṇaś-ca’. The Sāṅkhya denies God and transfers these epithets to the Puruṣa, who in his true essence is, according to the Sāṅkhya, merely a passive witness, pure intelligence, unaffected by guṇaṣ The Praśna Up. (IV. 8) speaks of the five elements and their mātrās (pṛthivi ca pṛthivimātrā ca &c), the ten indriyas and their objects, manas, buddhi, ahaṁkāra &c. The Sāṅkhyas rely on the verse ‘ajāmekāṁ’ (Śv. Up. IV. 5) ¹⁷ for Upaniṣadic support to their theory about prakṛti and its three guṇas (vide bhāṣya of Śaṅkara on V. S. I. 4. 8). That verse means : there is one unborn (female), constituted by red, white and black, but producing manifold progeny resembling each other; there is one unborn being (a male) who resorts to her (loves her) and lies by her; there is another, who leaves her after having experienced enjoyment. Similarly, Sānkhyas argue that Kapila, the founder of the Sānkhya system, is mentioned in the Śv. Up. (V. 2) 'it is he who, in the beginning, bears (nourishes) by thoughts Kapila sage when born and looks on while he is being borṇ' If one looks to various passages of the Śv. Up. such as III. 4, IV. 12, VI. 18 one must hold that ṛṣi Kapila,¹⁸ the reddish sage, is Hiraṇyagarbha (the golden child), the first creation ('Hiraṇyagarbhaḥ samavartatāgre,' Ṛg. X. 121. 1). Śaṅkarācārya (on V. S. II. 1. 1) replies that from the mere occurrence of the word 'Kapila' one cannot at once jump to the conclusion that he must be the founder of the Sānkhya, since another Kapila, called Vāsudeva, who reduced to ashes the sons of Sagara by his angry look, is well-knowṇ¹⁹ Śaṅkarācārya concedes on V. S. II. 1. 3 that both Sānkhya and Yoga are within the pale of Vedic orthodoxy as regards those portions of them that are not in conflict with the Veda. The five elements (mahābhūtāni) are mentioned in the Ait. Up. (III. 3), Praśna VI. 4 and the five special qualities of these five in Katha Up. (III. 15).

In view of the fact that the word 'Sānkhya' occurs in the Śv. Up. and that the Katha and Mundaka have some doctrines similar to the Sānkhya system and the Śvetāśvatara employs many words that occur frequently in the works on Sānkhya, the question arises—what is the relation of the Sānkhya to the Upaniṣadṣ There are three possible views, (1) that Upa- niṣad thought and Sānkhya made parallel progress, (2) that Sānkhya adopted and expanded some of the germinal ideas of the Upaniṣads, (3) that some Upaniṣads borrowed from the Sāṅkhya. It is not possible to discuss these questions here for reasons of space and relevance. The present author holds that it is the Sāṅkhya that based itself on the thoughts of the Upaniṣads, particularly when the older Upaniṣads like the Bṛ. Up. and Chāndogya hardly exhibit any traces of Sāṅkhya doctrines or technique, when Sāṅkhya reference are found only in Kathā, Muṇḍaka, Śvetāśvatara, Praśna (which are held to be later than Chāṇ Up. and Bṛ. Up. by modern scholarship) and when there is hardly any work or writer of purely Sāṅkhya doctrines that can be assigned to a period even a few centuries earlier than the Christian era and when no one can place the principal Upaniṣads (about twelve, including the Śvetāśvatara) later than 300 B. C., since even the Śv. Up. is referred to as ‘Śruti’ in V. S. I. 4, 8, II. 3. 22. Garbe (in ‘Die Sāṅkhya Philosophie’ pp. 3 ff) denies that Sāṅkhya underwent any essential modifications in its long history. Jacobi does not agree, holding that Sāṅkhya originated out of a common cultural and philosophical heritage and Oldenberg sees the origin of Sāṅkhya in the Kathā and Śv. Up. and holds that epic Sāṅkhya is an independent development (‘Die Lehre der Upaniṣhaden und die Anfänge des Buddhismus’, 1915, pp. 206 ff). Sāṅkhya and Yoga were known to Kauṭilya (Sāṅkhyam Yoga Lokāyatam cetrayīnvīkṣikī’ Arthaśāstra I. 2. p. 6.). Therefore, we may say that Sāṅkhya as a philosophical school started at least before the 4th century B. C.

We should now turn to Sanskrit works other than the Upaniṣads for seeing the origins of the Sāṅkhya systeṃ First comes the Mahābhārata.

In many passages of the Śāntiparva ²⁰ references to some of the doctrines, technical words and persons connected with the mature Sāṅkhya system occur. The references are so many that the present writer will have to select only a few passages by way of sample. In chap. 203 there is a dialogue between a clever pupil and his guru. It begins by stating (in verse 8) that Vāsudeva is all this (Vāsudevaḥ sarvam-idam), then it proceeds ‘just as from one lamp thousands of lamps can proceed, so prakṛti creates endless things, but does not become reduced (in size) thereby; buddhi springs from the activity of avyakta (i.e. prakṛti) and ahaṅkāra is produced (from buddhi) and from ahaṅkāra is evolved ākāśa from which vāyu arises and then tejas, water and the earth arise each from its predecessor; these eight are the mūlaprakṛtis²¹ and the whole world is centred in them (verses 24-26). Then the chap. mentions five organs of knowledge (ear, skin, eye, tongue, sense of smell) and five senses of activity (hands &c) and then there are the five objects of sense (viz. śabda, sparśa &c) and the mind is all-pervading and the 16th (verses 27-31). Then the chapter speaks of puruṣa (the soul) that resides in the city with nine²² gates and is undecaying and immortal, which shines in all beings just as a lamp, whether big or small, doeṣ In chapter 204 the same dialogue is pursued and the first verse says all bhūtas spring from avyakta and are merged (die) in avyakta, it refers to kṣetra (the body) and kṣetrajña (in verse 11) and winds up by saying that, just as seeds burnt by fire do not grow, the soul is not again connected with kleśas²³ when they are burnt by the fire of (correct) knowledge. In chap. 205, verses 22-23 speak of the characteristics of the three guṇas; chap. 206 says that when a person brings under control anger, avarice,²⁴ fear, pride and becomes pure he merges into the highest self that is Viṣṇu in avyakta form and chap. 207 deals with the measures for reaching the highest goal and puts forward brahmacarya (sexual purity) as the first measure. In these chapters, though some doctrines peculiar to the standard Sāṅkhya of the Kārikā appear, they are all brought in line with the Vedānta of one supreme Being, which is negatived in the official Sāṅkhya. That there were philosophers, who adopted some of the Sāṅkhya and Yoga doctrines, postulated Parameśvara (Supreme Deity) and held that the three, viz. Pradhāna, Puruṣa and Īśvara were different from each other, is expressly stated by Śaṅkarācārya ²⁵ in his bhāṣya on V. S. II. 2. 37. Therefore, the Mahābhārata references to Sāṅkhya probably relate to philosophical doctrines in which all three viz. Prakṛti, Puruṣa and Supreme Self were recognized, from which arose the later official Sāṅkhya that discarded any supreme Ruler of the Universe. In the Nārāyaṇīya section of the Śāntiparva (quoted in note 1544 p. 954 above) 'Sāṅkhya, Yoga, Pāñcarātra, Vedas and Pāśupata are said to be knowledges (jñānāni) and 'nānamatāni' (different points of view) and Kapila, a paramarṣi, is said to be propounder of Sāṅkhya. Chapter 294 (in verses 26-49) deals with the twenty-five tattvas of the Sāṅkhya from Prakṛti or Avyakta, mahat, ahaṅkāra, the five elements from ahaṅkāra (these eight being called prakṛtis) and then 16 vikāras (verse 29). These are called kṣetra, the soul is the 25th (v. 35) and is called kṣetrajña and Puruṣa (v. 37 'avyaktake pure śete puruṣaś-ceti kathyate', and Īśvara or brahma is not brought in anywhere in that chapter. Chapters 211-212 (containing in all 100 verses) of Śāntiparva deal with what Janaka, called Janadeva,²⁶ king of Mithilā, learnt from Pāñcaśikha, when the latter, after wandering over the whole earth, visited Mithilā and who is described as the first (or foremost) pupil of Āsuri and who is said to have performed a sattra for a thousand years on Pāñcaśrotas ²⁷ (verse 10). He was the son of a brāhmaṇa woman called Kapilā and was therefore known as Kāpileya (verses 13-15). Janaka had a hundred ācāryas in his palace who propounded the different views of different sectṣ Verse 9 says that Pañcaśikha made people wonder when he appeared like Kapila, the great sage (paramarṣi) and Prajāpati, that he confounded the hundred ācāryas by his arguments (v. 17). Later Janaka abandoned those ācāryas and followed Pañcaśikha (verse 18). He, after creating disgust in Janaka about his caste or about rites and about everything, expounded to Janaka the highest mokṣa which is declared as Sāṅkhya. In chāp. 212 Pañcaśikha expounds five elements, five jñānendriyas, five karmendriyas, mind (verses 7-22) and the signs ( liṅgas ) of sāttvika, rājasa and tāmasa bhāvas (verses 25-28) and describes how a person who seeks the Self is freed from the fetters of pleasure and pain and being beyond the fear of old age and death reaches immortality. In the first place, these two chapters are not sometimes very clear, offer no consistent clear-cut system and employ words that are difficult to construe and are not completely identical with the scheme of the 25 tattvas of the official Sāṅkhya of the Kārikā since chap. 211 verse 13 speaks of ‘ekākṣara brahma assuming many forms'. For example, it is difficult to say what is meant by ‘puruṣāstham-avyaktam'. The meaning that can be drawn out of the words seems to be 'he (Pañcaśikha) conveyed knowledge (to Janaka) about Avyakta (i. e. Pradhāna) that depends upon Puruṣa (i. e. that becomes active through union of Puruṣa with it), which is the highest truth. It further says that Pañcaśikha became perfect (in knowledge) by the performance of iṣṭis and sattras, again by abounding tapas, had a vision of the deity (God) and he realized the distinction between kṣetra and kṣetrajña and also realized brahma symbolized ²⁸ by oṃ

(Continued from last page) omits one verse in chap. 211 (corresponding to chap. 218 of the Citraśālā Press eḍ), which is पञ्चविंशति निष्ण्णतः पञ्चरात्रविशारदः । पञ्चाङ्गः पञ्चकुलजग्राहणः पञ्चाङ्गिः स्तः । which is 11-12 in that chap. Here पञ्चशिष् is said to have been profoundly learned in पञ्चरात्र (वैष्णव) doctrines, As he was called कपिलेय, it was probably imagined that his mother was Kapilā. fore, the doctrine of Pañcaśikha in these chapters of Śāntiparva is really advaita (monism) on which are grafted some doctrines similar to the later official Sāṅkhya for explaining creation and so forth.²⁹ In Śāntiparva 306. 56-66 ( = Chitra eḍ 318. 58-62) Viśvāvasu tells Yājñavalkya that he has heard about the 25th tattva (i. e. Puruṣa) from Jaigīṣavya, Asita-Devala, Vārṣagaṇya (of Parāśara gotra ), Bhṛgu Pañcaśikha, Kapila, Śuka, Gotama Ārṣṭiṣena, Garga, Nārada, Āsuri, Pulastya, Sanatkumāra, Śukra and Kāśyapa (father of Viśvāvasu) and 336. 65 (Chitra eḍ 318. 67) states that Yājñavalkya had mastered completely both Sāṅkhya and Yoga. Śāntiparva 304. 4 (=316. 4 of Citra. eḍ) states that Sāṅkhya and Yoga are one.³⁰

Pañcaśikha figures frequently in the Mahābhārata. In Śāntiparva, chap. 307 (containing only 14 verses ) Yudhiṣṭhira asks Bhīṣma how one can rise superior to old age and death,

( Continued from last page ) but from the passages in the Ahirbudhnya-saṃhitā, chap. XII. 18-29 it follows that the doctrines of Kapila's Sāṅkhya—tantra were divided into two mandalas called Prākṛta and Vaikṛta and the two had 32 and 28 topics respectively. 'सांख्यरूपेण सकृत्पूणो वैष्णवः कपिलालधेपः। उवितो याहसः पूर्व तादृशं शत्धु नेऽखिलभू। पक्षिभेदं स्वतं तन्त्रं सांख्यं नाम महापुने ! माकृतं चैकृतं चेति मण्डले हे समासतः !'. The coṃ Arjūnaṁiśra appears to take it as 'the great doctrine of Kapila came to him (Pañcaśikha) in the form of an aura of light and expounded to him the highest truth' etc. This is extremely far-fetcheḍ There is a doubt about the agent of 'nyabodhāyat and as to whom 'samāsinam' referṣ To me it appears that the meaning is that 'Pañcaśikha came to him (i, e. to Janaka) and imparted to him the great Kāpila mandala, the highest truth, the avyakta etc.' According to the usual sanskrit construction the agent of 'āgamya' and 'nyabodhāyat' must be the same (i. e. Pañcaśikha). समासीमेन refers to जनक. Compare 'एकाक्षरं परं ब्रह्म' मनु II. 83 and 'ओमित्येकाक्षरं ब्रह्म व्याहरन् मामनुस्मरन्' गीता VIII. 13. Verse 13 of chap. 211 is आहुरिर्मण्डले तत्सिद्ध प्रतियेदे तदव्ययम् ! (अव्ययं refers to एकाक्षर-ब्रह्म). Therefore, मण्डल should be taken to mean 'the circle of the doctrines first propounded by Kapila,' whether by very great tapas³¹ or by rites or by Vedic learning or by the use of rasāyanas (elixirs of life or alchemist's prescriptions). Bhīṣma speaks of an ancient dialogue between Janaka and Bhikṣu Pañcaśikha, where the same question was put by Janaka and Pañcaśikha replied that none can escape these two and that union with wife and relatives is like meeting persons when on a journey (i. e. the company of these is not durable or permanent), nobody has seen heaven or hell, that one’s duty is not to violate the ordinances of Vedas, and to make gifts and to offer sacrificeṣ In this chapter there is hardly anything which approaches the special doctrines of the Sāṅkhya, though Pañcaśikha’s views are here set forth. Chap. 308 (191 verses out of which less than 30 have anything to do with Pañcaśikha’s teachings directly) begins with the question of Yudhiṣṭhira ‘who secured mokṣa without giving up the stage of householder.’ Then Bhīṣma narrates to him the dialogue between Janaka called Dharmadhvaja³² and Sulabhā, a nuṇ Janaka was learned in the Veda, in mokṣaśāstra and in his own śāstra (rājadharma), he had controlled his senses and ruled the earth. She heard from ascetics about Janaka’s righteous conduct and she desired to find out the truth. She gave up her form as a nun by her yogic powers and became a woman, a paragon of beauty, and met Janaka. The latter informed her that he was the pupil of old bhikṣu³³ Pañcaśikha of the Pārāśarya gotra who stayed with him during the four months of the rainy season and who expounded to him the threefold mokṣa (viz. Sāṅkhya, Yoga and the science of government) and yet who did not ask him to give up rulership. Janaka said "I, giving up all attachment, though occupying the highest position (as ruler), follow the three paths of mokṣa; the highest rule of this mokṣa is 'freedom from attachment, the absence of attachment is due to correct knowledge whereby one is freed from bondage (of saṁsāra)'". Janaka further avows that ³⁴ on account of the knowledge imparted to him by the bhikṣu who is called after his top-knot, he is free from all attachment, though looking after the kingdom and that he is different from other sannyāsinṣ Then Janaka gives in verses (308. 38-41) another meaning ³⁵ of the threefold Mokṣa propounded by Pañcaśikha to him viz. (1) highest knowledge and renunciation of actions, (2) strict adherence to the path of karma (duties prescribed by Śāstra) and (3) combination of knowledge and actions, and it is said that those who follow this third path resemble householders in several respectṣ Janaka asserts his view 'wearing ochre-coloured ³⁶ garments, shaving the head, carrying a water-vessel placed on three staves-these are merely outward signs and do not lead to mokṣa and that mokṣa does not consist in non-possession of wealth, but it is jñāna by which a person secures deliverance, whether there is possession or non-possession of wealth'. It appears from verse 40 that Pañcaśikha emphasized the third kind of Mokṣaniṣṭhā (Jñānakarmasamuccaya) and Janaka followed that teaching. The rest of the chapter (308) is concerned with Janaka's charges against Sulabhā and Sulabhā's scathing remarks against Janaka. ³⁷ She says at the end 'you have indeed heard from Pañcaśikha the whole (doctrine) about mokṣa together with the means (for attaining it), with the upaniṣad passages expounding it or with the auxiliaries (of meditation) and with definite conclusionṣ’ This passage expressly refers to Upanisads in connection with mokṣa and the preceding verses emphasize the freedom from attachment on the part of Janaka (in 308. 37 ‘mukta- saṅga ’). The Br. Up. in III. 1 refers to the sacrifice performed by Janaka, king of Videha, who set apart a thousand cows to be given to him from among the brāhmaṇas assembled at it, that would be the most profound in learning and be brahmiṣṭha (most learned in or devoted to brahma). Yājñavalkya asked his disciple to take the cows away; thereupon followed a learned disquisition by questions (of angry brāhmaṇas including a woman) and answers by Yājñavalkya; ³⁷ the questioners were Āśvala (the holy priest of Janaka), Jarātkārava Ārtabhāga, Bhujyu Lāhyāyani, Usasta Cākrāyaṇa, Kahola Kauṣītakeya, Gargi Vācaknavi, Uddālaka, Āruṇi, Vidagdha Śākalya (III, 1-9 ending with ‘ vijñānam-ānandam brahma’). In Br. Up. IV, 2 it is said that Janaka Vaideha approached Yājñavalkya, did obeisance to him and said ‘instruct me’ and that then the sage spoke to him ‘you have studied the Veda and the Upanisads have been expounded to you by ācāryas, but, when you will be leaving this body, where will yo go’? Janaka replied that he did not know it and requested the sage to enlighten him on that point. Then a long disquisition follows (Br. Up. IV. 2 ff) in which occurs the famous passage (‘sa eṣa neti netyātmā, agrhyo na hi grhyate ..... asaṅgo na hi sajjate ..... abhayam vai Janaka prāptoṣi’ (IV. 2. 4). It appears to the present writer that some one desirous of boosting Sāṅkhya teachings inserted the chapters about Sāṅkhya in which Pañcaśikha is substituted in place of Yājñavalkya as the teacher of Janaka.

It would be seen from the brief synopsis of the chapters 211–12, 307 and 308 that the views described in all of them are not the same as those of the official or standard Sāṅkhya, that Pañcaśikha’s views as presented in chapters 211–212 seem to be different from those in chap. 308, particularly when chap. 308 emphasizes that jñāna-karma-samuccaya was the view of Pañcaśikha, while the official Sāṅkhya holds that jñāna alone leads to liberatioṇ It should be noted that these chapters nowhere refer to a work of Pañcaśikha but show him to be a wandering ascetic holding certain viewṣ The present writer believes that the author of these passages in the Śāntiparva had no work before him and only knew by hearsay and tradition that Pañcaśikha was a great Sāṅkhya teacher. Prof. Keith holds that the Pañcaśikha of the Śāntiparva is not identical with Pañcaśikha, the author of Ṣaṣṭitantra (p. 48 of 'Sāṅkhya System').⁴⁰

There are other chapters in the Śāntiparva where the peculiar Sāṅkhya doctrines and terminology are employed but they are brought in line with Vāsudeva or Highest Self to which the Sāṅkhya doctrines are made subordinate. For example, in chap. 340 Nārada is said to have been⁴¹ told by God himself some of the tenets of Sāṅkhya such as the twenty-four tattvas and Puruṣa as the 25th tattva, the three guṇas, that Puruṣa is kṣetrajña and bhoktṛ, that ācāryas, who have arrived at definite conclusions about Sāṅkhya, call God who is in the orb of the Sun as Kapila, that Hiraṇyagarbha, who is well praised in the Veda and is announced as (author) of Yogāśāstra, is 'myself'.

Not only in the Śāntiparva, but also in other parvans of the Mahābhārata, Sāṅkhya doctrines are dwelt upoṇ For example, the Aśvamedhika (in chap. 35. 47–48) speaks of sattva, rajas, tamas as ātmaguṇas and mentions their equilibriuṃ In another place, the same parvan enumerates the 24 tattvas viz. avyakta, mahān, ahaṅkāra &c and describes the three guṇaṣ⁴² Asuri is mentioned by the S. Kārikā as the pupil of Kapila, also in a quotation in Yogasūtrabhāṣya on I. 25 (note 2251) and by the Śāntiparva (chap. 306). But no work is attributed to him and hardly any quotation from him is cited by writers on Sāṁkhya (except a verse quoted as his by Haribhadra a late Jain writer). Kapila is a legendary figure. In Ṛgveda X. 27. 16 Kapila ⁴⁴ is mentioned as one among ten (Aṅgirases) whom, though similar to them, they (Aṅgirases) urge on for a sacrifice. Vide Hall's Preface to Sāṁkhya-pravacanabhāṣya (eḍ 1856) pp. 14 ff for the confused legends about Kapila. Some references to Kapila in the Mahābhārata have already been noteḍ In Vanaparva (221. 26) Kapila is styled as the promulgator of Sāṁkhya-yoga, as Paramaṛṣi and as an incarnation of Agni. In the Matsyapurāṇa ⁴⁵ it is stated that water should be offered to the seven sons of Brahmā, viz. Sanaka, Sananda, Sanātana, Kapila, Āsuri, Vodhu and Pāñcaśikha. The Vāmana-purāṇa (60. 70) mentions Kapila (as knower of Sāṁkhya), Vodhu, Āsuri, Pāñcaśikha (as 'yogayukta') and states that Sanat- kumāra approached Brahmā for yoga lore.

In the Snānasūtra of Kātyāyana (kaṇḍikā 3) attached to the Pārasakaragṛhyasūtra the above seven are the only persons to whom tarpaṇa is offered among ṛṣis (vide II. of Dh. vol. II. p. 693). In the Bhāgavatapurāṇa (I. 3. 10) Kapila is said to be the 5th avatāra of Viṣṇu, is called siddheśa (the lord of siddhas) and the teacher of Āsuri in Sāṅkhya that had become decadent (by lapse of time). The Gītā also (X. 26 ‘siddhanām Kapilo muniḥ’) mentions Kapila as a muni and the most eminent among siddhaṣ The S. Kārikā also refers to him as muni. The Kūrmapurāṇa (II. 7. 7) echoes the very words of the Gītā (‘siddhanām Kapilo muniḥ’). In the vaṃśas in Br. Up. II. 6. 3 and VI 5. 2–3, in which succession lists of teachers and pupils differing from one another occur, Āsuri is said to be disciple of Bharadvāja in the first and the pupil of Yājñavalkya in the seconḍ Each list contains at least 60 teachers from Brahmā downwardṣ In the first place, it is difficult to hold that these lists are authentic and there is no evidence to establish that the Āsuri mentioned in both is the same as the pupil of Kapila. Pañcaśikha's is a great name in the Sāṅkhya systeṃ His systematic work on that system was called Ṣaṣṭitantra. The S. Kārikā (70, 72) refers to him as the author of the Ṣaṣṭitantra containing great details, illustrative tales and discussions of others’ viewṣ It was called Ṣaṣṭitantra because it expounded sixty topics and it contained sixty thousand gāthāṣ⁴⁶ The Yogasūtrabhāṣya (IV. 13) quotes a verse which is ascribed to Ṣaṣṭitantra by Vācaspati on Yogasūtrabhāṣya IV. 13. The present writer cannot agree with Keith p. 69 that the reference to Ṣaṣṭitantra in S. Kārikā (verse 72) is not to a work but to a philosophy of sixty topicṣ The āryā 72 had a Sanskrit commentary which was translated into Chinese in 546 A. D. in which it was stated that the work contained six thousand gāthās,⁴⁷ but the Bhāmatī (by Vācaspati) on V. S. II. 1. 3 ascribes it to Vārṣagaṇya. It may be a slip on the part of Vācaspati or it is possible that he regarded Pañcaśikha and Vārṣagaṇya as the names of the same person, the first being a nickname and the latter a gotra name. On Yogasūtra I. 4, 25, 36, II. 5, 6, 13, 17, 18, 20, III. 13 and 41, IV. 13 (tathā ca śāstrānuśāsanam 'Guṇānām &c), prose passages occur which Vācaspati ascribes to Pañcaśikha. On S. Kārikā 2 Vācaspati quotes in his coṃ the view of Pañcaśikhācārya. In Yogaśūtrabhāṣya on I. 25 a sūtra is quoted which Vācaspati ascribes to Pañcaśikha in which Kapila is styled 'ādividvān' (the first master of Sāṅkhya) and 'paramarṣi' and is said to have imparted to Āsuri the Tantra, the Sāṅkhya Siddhānta.

In the dialogue between Viśvāvasu Gandharva and Yājñavalkya (in Śāntiparva, chap. 306) there is a long list of sages from whom Viśvāvasu says he learnt a great deal (in verses 56-60) but prays to Yājñavalkya ⁴⁸ that the latter should expound to him the knowledge of Sāṅkhya and Yoga (verses 65-66). Then Yājñavalkya states that prakṛti is also called pradhāna, that it does not know the 25th (viz. the puruṣa) and that there is a 26th (Highest Self) and so oṇ That list contains the following names: Jaigīṣavya⁴⁹, Asita, Devala, Vārṣagaṇya, of the Parāśaragoṭra, bhikṣu Pañcaśikha, Kapila, Śuka, Gautama, Ārṣiṣeṇa, Gārgya, Nārada, Āsuri, Pulastya, Sanatkumāra, Śukra, father of Kaśyapa. The sages are not mentioned in chronological order. Five of them (that are in Italics) are important so far as Sāṅkhya and Yoga are concerneḍ We saw above that Pañcaśikha is said to be of Parāśara gotra and in the above list Vārṣagaṇya also is said to be of the same gotra. Vācaspati on S. Kārikā 47 ascribes to Vārṣagaṇya the view that avidyā has five facets or aspectṣ⁵⁰ The Yogaśūtrabhāṣya on III. 53 quotes a sūtra of Vārṣagaṇya. It is shown above from the reconstruction of the Sanskrit Coṃ from Chinese that Varṣagaṇa was one of the teachers after Pāñcaśikha and before Īśvarakṛṣṇa. So it is extremely doubtful if Pāñcaśikha and Varṣagaṇa are identical. Vide JRAS for 1905 pp. 33-53 (by Takakusu who shows on p. 47 that Vṛṣagaṇa was a teacher of Vindhyāvāsa and that Vasubandhu wrote a work called Paramārthasaptati in opposition to Vindhyavāsa and that Paramārtha was in China from 546 to 569 A. D. In the Introduction to the Uttarādhyayana-sūtra (a Jain work) Charpentier refers to two different lists one older and shorter which speaks of the four Vedas, Itihāsas (as 5th), Nighaṇṭu as the sixth and of the Vedic aṅgas and upāṅgas and then of Ṣaṣṭitantra. This last may be a reference to Pāñca- śikha's work or simply to the 60 topics dwelt upon in the Sāṅkhya systeṃ In Śāntiparva (chap. 222) Yudhiṣṭhira asks Bhīṣma: by what character, conduct, lores and by being intent on what does a person reach the abode of Brahmā which is higher (or beyond) prakṛti and Bhīṣma mentions the dialogue of Jaigīṣavya and Asita Devala in which it is stated that he who is unperturbed by being reviled or praised, who keeps silent over his good deeds, does not harm even him who harms him, is always calm and does good to all beings, reaches the abode of Brahmā. The Buddhacarita (XII, 67) speaks of Jaigīṣavya, Janaka and Vṛddha-Parāśara as having secured mokṣa by the path described in that chapter. The Yogabhāṣya (on III. 18) gives a long story about Avatya (called prince of Yogins) and Jaigīṣavya. Jaigīṣavya is quoted in Vyāsabhāṣya on Y. S. II, 55 for indriya- jaya (control over senses). He appears to be a Vedāntic writer on Yoga. Not only does the Śāntiparva dilate upon some of the peculiar doctrines associated with the later official doctrines of the S. Kārikā, but the Bhagavadgītā also does so. A few striking passages are cited here. Gītā XIII. 5 (Mahābhūtānyaha- ṅkāro buddhiravyaktam eva ca; Indriyāṇi daśaikaṁ ca pañca cendriyagocarāḥ) enunciates the twenty-four tattvas omitt- ing puruṣa and mentioning the five elements in place of the five tanmātrās); XIII, 19-20 (prakṛtim puruṣam caiva viddhya- nādī ubhāvapi⁴³ vikārāṁśca guṇāṁścaiva viddhi prakṛti- sambhavān² Karyakāraṇa-kartṛtve hetuḥ prakṛtirucyate; Puruṣaḥ sukhduḥkhānāṁ bhoktṛtve heturucyate³); XIV. 5-9 (sattvam rajas tama iti guṇāḥ prakṛtisambhavāḥ &c.); VII. 4 ( bhūmirāponalo vāyuḥ kham many buddhireva ca ahankāra itiyam me bhinnā prakṛtir-aṣṭadhā"), VII, 13, II. 28. The Gītā in VII, 6 and 8 emphatically states that God is the source of the whole world, which ultimately is merged in Hiṃ Herein the Gītā differs materially from the standard Sāṅkhya. The Gītā expressly mentions “Sāṅkhya-kṛtānta” ⁵¹ (i. e. siddhānta) in XVIII, 13; what that means is that by that time Sāṅkhya tenets had assumed the form of a system but there is no express or definite reference to a work such as in the case of Veda or Vedānta (in XV, 15) or Brahmasūtra (in XIII, 4).

Vindhyavāsa or Vindhyavāsin (dweller on Vindhya mountain) is identified with Īśvarakṛṣṇa by Takakusu in B. E. F. E. O. for 1904 p. 48 and by Keith on pp. 73–79 in ‘Sāṅkhya Systeṃ’ His view about the non-existence of the ātivāhika body after a man’s death is mentioned by Kumārila.⁵² Dr. B. Bhattacharya (in J. I. H. vol. VI, pp. 36–49) goes into the question of the identity of Vindhyavāsa with Īśvarakṛṣṇa. The present writer agrees with him but he does not agree with his further conclusion (p. 49) that Vindhyavāsa lived earlier than Īśvarakṛṣṇa whom he assigns to the period 330–390 A. D. The evidence is too meagre to prove thiṣ In JRAS for 1905 pp. 47 ff. Vindhyavāsa is said by Takakusu to be a pupil of Vṛṣagaṇa and that according to Paramārtha Vṛṣagaṇa and Vindhyavāsa lived in the 10th century after Buddha’s nirvāṇa. From Kamalāśīla (p. 22 of Tattva-saṅgraha) it appears that Rudrila was also a name of Vindhyavāsa.

The Abhinavabhāratī of Abhinavagupta distinguishes between the two; ⁵³ so it is possible that Vindhyavāsa only revised the Sāṅkhya system after Īśvarakṛṣṇa. Bhojadeva in his Rāja- mārtaṇḍa ⁵⁴ on Yogāsūtra IV. 22 (23 of most editions) ‘dṛṣṭi- dṛśyoparaktam cittam sarvārtham’ quotes a prose passage from Vindhyavāsiṇ As there is no evidence to show that Īśvarakṛṣṇa composed some work other than the Sāṅkhyakārikā, Vindhya- vāsin must be treated as different from Īśvarakṛṣṇa according to Bhojadeva. The Yuktidīpikā several times mentions the views of Vindhyavāsin and indicates that he is different from the author of the S. Kārikā. Vide pp. 4, 108, 144, 148. This work says that the ācārya (author of S. Kārikā) did not enum- erate jīñāsā ⁵⁵ and other constituents of the Śāstra but other ācāryas like Vindhyavāsa did mention them in other treatiseṣ On pp. 144–145 this coṃ shows that Vindhyavāsin held that indriyas were vibhu (all-pervading), denied the existence of a subtle body (sūkṣma śarīra), while in S. Kārikā (40–41) Īśvarakṛṣṇa held that the indriyas were not vibhu and that there was a liṅga or sūkṣma body and Yuktidīpikā p. 144 says that Patañjali postulated a subtle body.

How the name Sāṅkhya came to be applied to a system of philosophy has to be considereḍ ‘Sāṅkhya’ means ‘number’, hence enumeratioṇ As the Sāṅkhya system enumerated twenty-five tattvas and as the Saṣṭitantra of Pañcaśikha dealt with sixty topics, it is likely that the philosophy came to be called Sāṅkhya. The Śv. Up. I. 4 is full of numberṣ ⁵⁶ Verse I. 5 of Śv. Up. employs the word pañca (five) seven times and also has the word ‘pañcaśadadbhedam’, similar to ‘śatārdhāram’ in I. 4); vide VI. 3 also. In this sense Sāṅkhya means the philosophic system which postulates twentyfive tattvas, Prakṛti, Puruṣa and otherṣ This is the sense in which the word is used once even in the Gītā (18. 13, Sāṅkhya kṛtānte proktāni &c ). The Matsyapurāṇa also emphasizes this aspect of the Sāṅkhya systeṃ

The word ‘Sāṅkhyā’ has another sense as the Amarakośa states (‘carcā saṅkhyā vicāraṇā) viz. ‘rational examination’ or ‘discernment’; and the word Sāṅkhya may be derived from it in the sense of ‘system of rational examination’ and in the sense of ‘philosopher’ (masculine) according to ‘tadadhīte tadveda’ (Pāṇ. IV. 2. 59) meaning ‘Sāṅkhyam veda’.⁵⁷ The Bhāmatī explains the word in the second sense. Sāṅkhya in a general sense means tattvajñāna (knowledge of ultimate reality, includ-ing Vedānta) or a ‘person who knows the ultimate reality.’ The word Sāṅkhya is frequently used in the Bhagavadgītā in the sense of tattvajñāna (as in II. 39, V. 5, XIII. 24) and in the sense of a person knowing ultimate reality (in III. 3, V. 5).

Some comparatively early Sanskrit works that disclose tenets similar to the standard Sāṅkhya of the Kārikā may be briefly noticed here. The Buddhacarita of Aśvaghoṣa (in chap. XIII. 17ff) mentions a dialogue between Arāḍa and Gautama (the future Buddha) in which occur prakṛti, five elements, ahaṅkāra, buddhi, the indriyas, objects of sense, mind, kṣetrajña as Ātman and states that Kapila with his pupil was enlightened as to these; that nescience, actions and desires are the causes of saṁsāra; that avidyā has five aspects (verses 33–37) which are defined, speaks of brahmacarya, and mukti. Though the tattvas are mentioned here the rest of the doctrines bear very little resemblance to the official Sāṅkhya.

The Carakasaṁhitā ⁵⁸ (Jamnagar eḍ 1949), Śārīrasthāna chap. I (particularly verses 17, 36, 63–66 ) contains some doctrines similar to the Sāṅkhyakārikā scheme and verse 151 refers to Yogins and Sāṅkhyas and ultimately the liberated soul is said to become brahma. Therefore, it is more like the philo- sophy of Katha and Śv. Upaniṣadṣ

The Suśrutasaṁhitā also (in Śārīrasthāna, chap. I para- graphs 3, 4-6, 8-9) sets out the Sāṅkhya,⁵⁹ is much closer to the standard system of the Kārikā than either the Buddha- carita or the Carakasaṁhitā as the quotations in the notes will show.

From p. 1352 and note 2208 above it would be seen that the tenet of pradhāna being the cause of the world was mentioned in their works by Manu and otherṣ This will be briefly illustrateḍ Manu I. 15 in speaking of creation mentions mahān, the three guṇas, objects of sense, five senseṣ Manu I. 27 refers to the five tanmātrās of the five elementṣ In° Manusmṛti XII. 24 sattva, rajas and tamas occur as the three guṇas, verses 26-29 define and illustrate these three and XII. 30-38 dilate upon the different effects of the three guṇas and the indications about these guṇas; XII. 40 provides that those who rest in sattva-guṇa become gods, those who are rājasa become men and those that abide in tamas become lower animalṣ⁶⁰ Manu XII. 50 speaks of mahān and avyakta. Yāj. smṛti (III. 91-92) speaks of the five objects of sense, five jñānendriyas, five karmendriyas and mind (16 in all); these sixteen together with ahaṅkāra, buddhi and five elements, kṣetrajña and Īśvara are mentioned in Yāj. III. 177-178 and verses 179-180 set out the evolution of buddhi from avyakta, of ahaṅkāra from buddhi, of tanmātrās from ahaṅkāra, the five guṇas (śabda, sparśa &c.) of the five elements and verse 182 speaks of the three guṇaṣ On p. 1352 and in note 2208 above occurs the statement of Śankarācārya that Devala, a Sūtrakāra on Dharma, accepted Sāṁkhya doctrineṣ This will be briefly indicated here. Aparārka on Yaj. III.109 quotes a very long passage⁶¹ from Devala, which after stating that there are two goals of human life (puruṣārtha) viz. abhyudaya and niḥśreyasa and that the latter comprises Sāṁkhya and Yoga, defines Sāṁkhya as the knowledge of twenty-five tattvas, and yoga as the fixing of the mind on the desired goal after turning it away from objects of sense, and states that the fruit of both is apavarga which means the total disappearance of the sufferings of birth and death. The quotation then proceeds to say that there are extensive and profound tantras concerning both Sāṅkhya and Yoga composed by former (sages) relying on ratiocination and tradition and these will be summarized and their subjects set out. As to the Sāṅkhyas there are these: mūlaprakṛti, seven categories that are both prakṛtis and vikṛtis, five tanmātrās, sixteen vikāras (products); indriyas are five (jñānendriyas) and five (karmendriyas), five objects of sense, five elements; thirteen karaṇas, three being antaḥkaraṇas; viparyaya of five kinds, aśakti of 28 kinds; tuṣṭi of nine kinds, siddhiś of eight kinds; in this way there are 50 pratyayābhedas, there are ten basic matters, viz. astitva (existence of prakṛti &c). After this there is again an enumera-tion of prakṛti, avyakta, mahān, ahaṅkāra, five tanmātrās &c.

It would be noticed that the quotation from Devala in Aparārka contains two parts, the first stopping at the words ' iti daśa mūlikārthāḥ' and the 2nd containing the rest. It appears that the two parts cover mostly the same ground and it is probable that the two parts are summaries of two different works on Sāṅkhya.

Another important digest of the first quarter of the 12th century A. D. namely the Kṛtyakalpataru of Lakṣmīdhara in its Mokṣakāṇḍa pp. 100-101 also quotes from Devala's Dharmasūtra a prose passage which agrees word for word with a portion of the passage quoted above from Aparārka viz. from the words ‘ tatra sāṅkhyānām ekā mūlaprakṛtiḥ’ up to ‘ triṇyantaḥ-karaṇāni’. Then the portion from ‘ catasraś-catasro’ to ‘ iti daśa mūlikārthāḥ’ is dropped by the Kalpataru and then it has the whole of the passage from ‘ atha mūlaprakṛtiravyaktam’ up to ‘ abhimāna ityanarthāntaram’, ⁶² after which it adds a short passage not found in Aparārka (which is quoted below). It has the passage ‘ prakṛter mahānutpadyate’ up to ‘ ityutpatti-kramaḥ’.

Both Aparārka and Kṛtyakalpataru (Mokṣakāṇḍa) quote verses from Yama on the Sāṅkhya system, which are cited in the note below. It will be noticed that after enumerating the twenty-five tattvas Yama adds Puruṣottama as the 26th tattva.⁶³

Purāṇas contain lengthy disquisitions on the Sāṅkhya doctrineṣ For example, the Viṣṇupurāṇa I. 2. 19-23, 25-62, VI. 4. 13-15, 17, 32-40 (in all about 66 verses) are full of Sāṅkhya doctrines and are all quoted in the Kṛtyakalpataru (Mokṣakāṇḍa pp. 102-108). But that Purāṇa emphasizes that Paramātman (called Viṣṇu) is the support of all tattvaṣ In Viṣṇupurāṇa I. 2. 22-23 it is asserted⁶⁴ that brahmavādins who are proficient in Vedic doctrines recite (a verse) that expounds pradhāna, (and state) ‘there was then (before creation) neither day nor night, no sky nor earth, neither darkness nor light, there was only one male brahma that was evolved as pradhāna and that could not be apprehended by the ear (and other indriyas) or by buddhi. Verses 39-40 (of Viṣṇupurāṇa VI. 4) assert that both⁶⁵ prakṛti and puruṣa become dissolved in the Highest Self who is called Viṣṇu in Vedas and Vedāntas (Upaniṣads).

Many other Purāṇas devote a great deal of space to the elucidation of Sāṅkhya doctrines and terminology. Considerations of space preclude any statement beyond references to chapters and verses of some Purāṇas and the citation of a few striking or informative verseṣ Matsya (3. 14–29) begins with prakṛti, guṇas and all the twenty-five tattvas, remarks that the three gods, Brahmā, Viṣṇu, Maheśvara, though one, arose from the guṇas being put into activity and winds up by saying that Sāṅkhya is full of enumerations and was proclaimed by Kapila and otherṣ⁶⁶ The Brahmapurāṇa (1. 33–35, 33. 3–4, 242, 67–70, 76–85) recounts the tattvas from prakṛti to kṣetrajña and remarks at the end that the soul becomes kevala (free from all contacts and liberated) when he realizes the truth about himself. The Padmapurāṇa in several places dilates upon the tattvas of the Sāṅkhya such as in Pātālakhaṇḍa 85. 11–18, Sṛṣṭikhaṇḍa, chap. 2. 88–103, chap. 15. 177–187, which closely follow the S. Kārikā verseṣ The Kūrmapurāṇa (I. 4. 13–35) states that Maheśvara enters prakṛti and puruṣa, activates them and sets out Sāṅkhya ideas and in II. 7. 21–26 it refers to the twenty-four tattvas and the state of equilibrium (sāmyāvasthā). The Mārkaṇḍeyapurāṇa in chap. 42. 32–62 treats of creation with Sāṅkhya terminology. Three verses of the Brahmāṇḍa IV. 3. 37–46 referring to the threefold bondage (bandha) are quoted by the Kṛtyakalpataru (mokṣa) p. 124. Similarly, Brahmāṇḍa (II. 32. 71–76) employ the Sāṅkhya terminology of mahat, ahaṅkāra &c. Prof. Das Gupta in ‘Indian Philosophy’ vol. IV. pp. 24–48 deals at some length with Kapila’s philosophy in the Bhāgavatapurāṇa and Śrī Siddhesvara Bhaṭṭacharya contributes a paper ‘a critique of the Bhāgavata’ in JBRS for 1950 pp. 9–50 in which he severely criticizes Prof. Das Gupta. Vide Bhāgavatapurāṇa III. 26. The Varāhapurāṇa (B. I. eḍ of 1893) narrates the story of king Aśvaśiras to whom Kapila and Jaiģīṣavya (the prince of Yogins) came after he had performed the avabhṛtha bath and was surrounded by brāhmaṇas and who asked them how the highest Nārāyaṇa was to be worshipped, when the two told him that they were themselves Nārāyaṇa. On his doubting these words of theirs Kapila assumed the form of Viṣṇu and Jaiģīṣavya of Garuḍa and after other similar wonders, the king requested that his doubt whether Mokṣa is attained by him who follows karmamārga or jñānamārga be resolveḍ The same Purāṇa in chap. 25 (verses 1-5) declares that avyakta, the first tattva, made up of three (guṇas) arose from the highest Puruṣa, from the union of the two ahaṅkāra was produced also called mahat, that Puruṣa is named Viṣṇu or Śiva while avyakta is called Umā, Devī or Śrī and Guha (Kārtikeya) is ahaṅkāra. The Bhāgavatapurāṇa (I. 3. 10) mentions Kapila as the fifth avatāra of Viṣṇu (vide above p. 1373) and (in X. 8. 37-38) states that when Yaśodā asked the child Kṛṣṇa to open his mouth she saw inside the mouth the whole world, the five elements, the indriyas, mind, mātrās and the three guṇaṣ Even great poets like Kālidāsa and Bāṇa are fond of utilising Sāṅkhya doctrines and terminology. For example, vide Kumārasambhava II, 4 (Guṇatrayavibhāgāya &c.), Raghuvamśa X. 38 (aṅgināṁ tamasevobhau guṇau prathamamadhya- mau), Raghuvamśa VIII. 21 (Raghurapayajayad-guṇa-trayam prakṛtistham &c. ); Kādambarī, very first verse (rajojuṣe janmani...triguṇātmane namaḥ).

Even the Tantras were influenced by the Sāṅkhya system as the Śāradātilaka shows (vide above p. 1061).

It is not a vain boast when the Śāntiparva⁶⁷ asserts that whatever knowledge is found in the Vedas, in Sāṅkhya and Yoga, in the various Purāṇas, in the extensive itihāsas, in the arthaśāstra and whatever knowledge exists in the world, all that is derived from the Sāṅkhya. For a dispassionate appraisal of the Sāṅkhya theory of evolution and its stages, vide Dr. Behanan's work on ' Yoga ' chap. IV. pp. 63-91.