A History of Hindu Chemistry from the Earliest Times to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century A.D. v1.c10.t15: Dates of the Philosophical Sūtras—The Question of Priority

A History of Hindu Chemistry from the Earliest Times to the Middle of the Sixteenth Century A.D. v1.c10.t15

Language: English

Dates of the Philosophical Sūtras—The Question of Priority

v1.c10.t15.1

As regards the dates of the philosophical sūtras, nothing definite is known; here, as in the subsequent portions of our history, we have to depend largely upon constructive chronology.

v1.c10.t15.2

We quote below two short extracts from Professor Max Müller's "Indian Philosophy" which summarise all the information available at present on the subject:

"If we consider the state of philosophical thought in India such as it is represented to us in the Brāhmaṇas and Upanishads, and afterwards in the canonical books of the Buddhists, we cannot wonder that all attempts at fixing the dates of the six recognised systems of philosophy, nay even their mutual relationship, should hitherto have failed. It is true that Buddhism and Jainism were likewise but two philosophical systems out of many, and that it has been possible to fix their dates. But if in their case we know something about their dates and their historical development, this is chiefly due to the social and political importance which they acquired during the fifth, the

v1.c10.t15.4

fourth, and the third centuries B. C., and not simply to their philosophical tenets. We know also that there were many teachers, contemporaries of Buddha, but they have left no traces in the literary history of India.

v1.c10.t15.5

"We cannot be far wrong therefore if we assign the gradual formation of the six systems of philosophy to the period from Buddha (5th century) to Asoka (third century), though we have to admit, particularly in the cases of Vedānta, Sāmkhya and Yoga, a long previous development reaching back through Upanishads and Brāhmanas to the very hymns of the Rig Veda.

v1.c10.t15.6

"It is equally difficult to fix the relative position of the great systems of philosophy, because, as I explained before, they quote each other mutually. With regard to the relation of Buddhism to the six orthodox systems it seems to me that all we can honestly say is that schools of philosophy handing down doctrines very similar to those of our six classical or orthodox systems are presupposed by the Buddhist Sūttas." (pp. 116—120)

v1.c10.t15.7

As regards the question of priority, we shall also take the liberty to quote below from Prof.

v1.c10.t15.8

Macdonell's "History of Sanskrit Literature":

v1.c10.t15.9

"Turning to Philosophical Literature, we find that the early Greek and Indian Philosophers have many points in common. Some of the leading doctrines of the Eleatics, that God and the universe are one, that everything existing in multiplicity has no reality, that thinking and being are identical, are all to be found in the philosophy of the Upanishads and the Vedānta system, which is its outcome. Again, the doctrine of Empedocles, that nothing can arise which has not existed before, and that nothing existing can be annihilated, has its exact parallel in the characteristic doctrine of the Sāmkhya system about the eternity and indestructibility of matter. According to Greek tradition, Thales, Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, and others undertook journeys to Oriental countries in order to study philosophy. Hence there is at least the historical possibility of the Greeks having been influenced by Indian thought through Persia.

v1.c10.t15.10

"Whatever may be the truth in the cases just mentioned, the dependence of Pythagoras on Indian philosophy and science certainly seems to have a high degree of probability. Almost all the doctrines ascribed to him, religious, philosophical, mathematical were known in India in the sixth century B. C. The coincidences are so numerous that their cumulative force becomes considerable. The transmigration theory, the assumption of five elements the Pythagorean theorem in geometry, the prohibition as to eating beans, the religio-philosophical character of the Pythagorean fraternity and the mystical speculations of the Pythagorean school, all have their close parallels in ancient India. The doctrine of metempsychosis in the case of Pythagoras appears without any connection or explanatory background and was regarded by the Greeks as of foreign origin. He could not have derived it from Egypt, as it was not known to the ancient Egyptians. In spite, however, of the later tradition, it seems impossible that Pythagoras should have made his way to India at so early a date, but he could quite well have met Indians in Persia.”¹

v1.c10.t15.11

¹ “History of Sanskrit Literature” pp. 421—22. Colebrooke himself sums up his views in these words :—“I should be disposed to conclude that the Indians were in this instance teachers than learners.” “Trans. Roy. As. Soc.,” Vol. I., p. 579. Prof. H. H. Wilson observes :—“that the Hindus derived any of their philosophical ideas from the Greek seems very improbable, and if there is any borrowing in the case, the latter were most probably indebted to the former.” Preface to the Sámkhya Káriká (1837) p. ix.

v1.c10.t15.12

Chemistry in the Charaka and the Sus'ruta

Linked texts (1)

Ṛgvedasaṃhitā — Sanskrit