The Samkhya System: A History of the Samkhya Philosophy c11.6

c11.6

More difficult is the question of the date of the commentary of Gauḍapāda, which has been handed down with the Kārikā, and which is certainly of considerable importance in determining precisely the meaning of the principles summarized in the sixty-nine Āryā stanzas of the Kārikā. The date of Gauḍapāda is uncertain: if he could safely be identfied with the author of the Kārikā on the Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad, who seems to have been a predecessor of Śaṃkara, then he could be assigned to the first half of the eighth century A.D. But the contrast between the philosophical views of the two works is so great that identity of authorship can hardly be presumed on no better evidence than identity of name. Another date would be secured if it could be established that the commentary of Gauḍapāda was the basis of the Chinese commentary which is still preserved. But the researches of Takakusu have definitely established the fact that this commentary differs too greatly from that of Gauḍapāda to have been derived from it, and that both it and the commentary of Gauḍapāda must go back ultimately to a common source. This conclusion is incidentally confirmed by the evidence of the very full account of the Kārikā given by Albiruni (1030 A.D.), who actually mentions a Gauḍa as authority. His statements, however, cannot be derived entirely* from the work of Gauḍapāda, and it is clear that he used two different authorities. Who the author of this older commentary was is uncertain: there is a Chinese tradition that it was Vasubandhu himself, but this suggestion is supported by no evidence, and can easily be explained away as a misunderstanding of the fact that Vasubandhu wrote a work to refute the Kārikā. There is therefore plausibility in the suggestion† that the author was Īśvarakṛṣṇa himself, especially as the nature of the Kārikā is such as urgently to require an interpretation. If, however, this was the case, before the work was taken to China there had already been appended to it the last verses, which are not recognized by Gauḍapāda, but which are given and explained in the Chinese commentary. It is probable that Gauḍapāda’s commentary was distinctly later than the original of the Chinese version: a terminus ad quem is given by the use of Gauḍapāda by Albiruni in the eleventh century A.D., and by his priority to Vācaspatimiśra, whose commentary on the Kārikā the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī, written in the ninth century A.D.,‡ ranks high among the authorities on the Sāṃkhya philosophy, and has been made the subject of several super-commentaries. Later is the commentary of Nārāyaṇatīrtha, which is of little value.