History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c94.79

v7.c94.79

The Abhinavabhāratī of Abhinavagupta distinguishes between the two;²²⁵⁵ so it is possible that Vindyavāsa only revised the Sāṅkhya system after Īśvarakṛṣṇa. Bhojadeva in his Rāja-mārtaṇḍa²²⁵⁶ on Yogasūtra IV. 22 (23 of most editions) ‘draṣṭi-dṛśyoparaktam cittam sarvārtham’ quotes a prose passage from Vindhyavāsin. 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 *jijñāsā*²²⁵⁷ and other constituents of the Śāstra but other ācāryas like Vindhyavāsa did mention them in other treatises. On pp 144-145 this com. 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.