_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  Four causes are spoken of here as being causes of memory:  (1) Thinking of the cause leads to the remembering of the effect, (2) by similarity, (3) by opposite things, and (4) by acute attempt to remember.]

[Footnote 2:  Some European scholars have experienced great difficulty in accepting Pancas’ikha’s doctrine as a genuine Sa@mkhya doctrine.  This may probably be due to the fact that the Sa@mkhya doctrines sketched in Caraka did not attract their notice.]

217

for the existence of the self are also the same.  Like Caraka again Pancas’ikha also says that all consciousness is due to the conditions of the conglomeration of our physical body mind,—­and the element of “cetas.”  They are mutually independent, and by such independence carry on the process of life and work.  None of the phenomena produced by such a conglomeration are self.  All our suffering comes in because we think these to be the self.  Mok@sa is realized when we can practise absolute renunciation of these phenomena.  The gu@nas described by Pancas’ikha are the different kinds of good and bad qualities of the mind as Caraka has it.  The state of the conglomeration is spoken of as the k@setra, as Caraka says, and there is no annihilation or eternality; and the last state is described as being like that when all rivers lose themselves in the ocean and it is called ali@nga (without any characteristic)—­a term reserved for prak@rti in later Sa@mkhya.  This state is attainable by the doctrine of ultimate renunciation which is also called the doctrine of complete destruction (samyagbadha).

Gu@naratna (fourteenth century A.D.), a commentator of _@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya_, mentions two schools of Sa@mkhya, the Maulikya (original) and the Uttara or (later) [Footnote ref 1].  Of these the doctrine of the Maulikya Sa@mkhya is said to be that which believed that there was a separate pradhana for each atman (maulikyasa@mkhya hyatmanamatmanam prati p@rthak pradhanam vadanti).  This seems to be a reference to the Sa@mkhya doctrine I have just sketched.  I am therefore disposed to think that this represents the earliest systematic doctrine of Sa@mkhya.

In Mahabharata XII. 318 three schools of Sa@mkhya are mentioned, viz. those who admitted twenty-four categories (the school I have sketched above), those who admitted twenty-five (the well-known orthodox Sa@mkhya system) and those who admitted twenty-six categories.  This last school admitted a supreme being in addition to puru@sa and this was the twenty-sixth principle.  This agrees with the orthodox Yoga system and the form of Sa@mkhya advocated in the Mahabharata.  The schools of Sa@mkhya of twenty-four and twenty-five categories are here denounced as unsatisfactory.  Doctrines similar to the school of Sa@mkhya we have sketched above are referred to in some of the