_______________________________________________________

_____________

[Footnote 1:  Tarkarahasyadipika, p. 109.]

[Footnote 2:  eva@m sa@dvims’akam prahah s’ariramth manavah sa@mkhyam sa@mkhyatmakatvacca kapiladibhirucyate.  Matsyapurana, IV. 28.]

222

totality of human psychosis on the other.  A systematic explanation of the gunas was attempted in two different lines by Vijnana Bhik@su and the Vai@s@nava writer Ve@nka@ta [Footnote ref l].  As the Yoga philosophy compiled by Patanjali and commented on by Vyasa, Vacaspati and Vijn@ana Bhik@su, agree with the Sa@mkhya doctrine as explained by Vacaspati and Vijnana Bhik@su in most points I have preferred to call them the Kapila and the Patanjala schools of Sa@mkhya and have treated them together—­a principle which was followed by Haribhadra in his _@Sa@ddars’anasamuaccaya_.

The other important Sa@mkhya teachers mentioned by Gaudapada are Sanaka, Sananda, Sanatana and Vo@dhu.  Nothing is known about their historicity or doctrines.

Sa@mkhya karika, Sa@mkhya sutra, Vacaspati Mis’ra and
Vijnana Bhik@su.

A word of explanation is necessary as regards my interpretation of the Sa@mkhya-Yoga system.  The Sa@mkhya karika is the oldest Sa@mkhya text on which we have commentaries by later writers.  The Sa@mkhya sutra was not referred to by any writer until it was commented upon by Aniruddha (fifteenth century A.D.).  Even Gu@naratna of the fourteenth century A D. who made allusions to a number of Sa@mkhya works, did not make any reference to the Sa@mkhya sutra, and no other writer who is known to have flourished before Gu@naratna seems to have made any reference to the Sa@mkhya sutra.  The natural conclusion therefore is that these sutras were probably written some time after the fourteenth century.  But there is no positive evidence to prove that it was so late a work as the fifteenth century.  It is said at the end of the Sa@mkhya karika of Is’varak@r@s@na that the karikas give an exposition of the Sa@mkhya doctrine excluding the refutations of the doctrines of other people and excluding the parables attached to the original Sa@mkhya works—­the _@Sa@s@titantras’astra_.  The Sa@mkhya sutras contain refutations of other doctrines and also a number of parables.  It is not improbable that these were collected from some earlier Sa@mkhya work which is now lost to us.  It may be that it was done from some later edition of the _@Sa@s@titantras’astra_ (_@Sa@s@titantroddhara_ as mentioned by

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  Venka@ta’s philosophy will be dealt with in the second volume of the present work.]

223