History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c94.8

v7.c94.8

There is the Sānkhyasūtra or Sānkhyapravacanasūtra 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 Introduction and by Fitz-Edward Hall in his learned Introduction to the edition of the Sāṅkhyapravacana-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 Sāṅkhyakārikā have been published. 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 Series. 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 ms. 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 topics. 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 com. is Paurika on p. 169 and p. 175, who holds the surprising view²²¹⁰ that there is a separate *pradhāna* 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; Vārṣagaṇāḥ (in the plural) are mentioned on pp. 39, 67, 95, 102, 133, 145, 170; Vārṣagaṇa (pp. 6, 108) and Vārṣagaṇavīra (on pp. 72, 108, 175) styled bhagavān on p 72 and Vṛṣagaṇavīra (on p. 103 probably meaning 'the son of Vṛṣagaṇa'); all these refer to the views of Vārṣagaṇas Pañcaśikha (p. 31 in the plural, p. 61, p. 175) is mentioned and one passage which is quoted in the Vyāsabhāṣya (on Y. S. I 4) and ascribed to Pañcaśikha by Vācaspati is quoted by the Yuktidīpikā on p. 41 as Śāstra. From pp. 113 and 129 it appears that the author of the com. was a Vedāntin.²²¹¹ 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