Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s10: 10. Historians of Philosophy

A History of Sanskrit Literature c33.s10

Language
English

10. Historians of Philosophy

c33.s10.1

A history of Indian philosophy was never attempted in India; the most that was achieved was the grouping of systems by reason of their similarities, and accounts of contending views based on the desire to prove by this means the superiority of some doctrine or other. The common view of six systems, grouped in pairs, Pūrvamīmāṅsā and Vedānta, Sāṁkhya and Yoga, and Nyāya and Vaiçeṣika, and treated as orthodox, because they accept the Veda as authoritative, is certainly not early, though a sketch of these six is found in Siddharṣi's *Upamitibhavaprapañcā kathā* (A.D. 906). Haribhadra's *Ṣaḍdarçanasamuccaya*,² of the eighth century, deals with Buddhist views, Nyāya, Sāṁkhya, Vaiçeṣika, and Pūrvamīmāṅsā as well as Jain metaphysics, and very shortly with the Cārvāka views; thus suggesting that the number six was traditional but not rigidly fixed in significance. In the *Sarvadarçanasiddhāntasaṁgraha*,³ which is erroneously ascribed to Çaṅkara, we find accounts of the Lokāyatika, the Jain system, the Buddhist schools, Mādhyamikas, Yogācāras, Sautrāntikas, and Vaibhāṣikas, Vaiçeṣika, Nyāya, Pūrvamīmāṅsā—according to Prabhākara and Kumārila, Sāṁkhya, Patañjali, Vedavyāsa, that is the *Mahābhārata*, and Vedānta, which is the author's own view. The date is dubious, but the *Bhāgavata Purāṇa* is known while Rāmānuja is ignored, and the alleged⁴ allusion to the Turks is uncertain. Later probably is the well-known *Sarvadarçanasaṁgraha*, which deals with the systems arranged from the point of view of relative error. The Cārvākas are followed by the Buddhists, Jains, Rāmānuja—a very palpable hit at a rival school, various Çaiva schools, Vaiçeṣika, Nyāya, Pūrvamīmāṅsā, followed by a grammatical school ascribed to Pāṇini, Sāṁkhya, and Yoga. The chapter on Vedānta seems not to be part of the original work, but to have been added later, conceivably by the father of the author if we take him to be Mādhava,¹ son of Sāyaṇa, not his brother, though this view is only conjectural and to Sāyaṇa himself the work is sometimes attributed. The date is the fourteenth century, in the latter part. Of unknown author and date is the *Sarvamatasaṁgraha*,² which sets three Vedic schools against three non-Vedic, describes Jain, Buddhist, and materialist views, and then sets out Vaiçeṣika and Nyāya as Tarka; the theistic and atheistic Sāṁkhya; and Mīmāṅsā and Vedānta as Mīmāṅsā.

c33.s10.2

² Ed. L. Suali, BI. 1905 ff.

c33.s10.3

³ Ed. and trans. M. Raṅgācārya, Madras, 1910.

c33.s10.4

⁴ Jacobi, DLZ. 1921, p. 724. Contrast Liebich, DLZ. 1922, pp. 100 f.

c33.s10.5

¹ Cf. R. Narasimhachar, IA. xlv. 1 ff., 17 ff. But this is not proved, and Sāyaṇa's son's name is Māyaṇa. The text is ed. Calcutta, 1908; ĀnSS. 51, 1906; Poona, 1924; trans. E. B. Cowell and A. E. Gough, London, 1894.

c33.s10.6

² Ed. TSS. 62, 1918.

Linked texts (4)