68

nor try to establish their own validity on their authority.  These are principally three in number, the Buddhist, Jaina and the Carvaka.  The astika-mata or orthodox schools are six in number, Sa@mkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mima@msa, Nyaya and Vais’e@sika, generally known as the six systems (_@sa@ddars’ana_ [Footnote ref 1]).

The Sa@mkhya is ascribed to a mythical Kapila, but the earliest works on the subject are probably now lost.  The Yoga system is attributed to Patanjali and the original sutras are called the Patanjala Yoga sutras.  The general metaphysical position of these two systems with regard to soul, nature, cosmology and the final goal is almost the same, and the difference lies in this that the Yoga system acknowledges a god (Is’vara) as distinct from Atman and lays much importance on certain mystical practices (commonly known as Yoga practices) for the achievement of liberation, whereas the Sa@mkhya denies the existence of Is’vara and thinks that sincere philosophic thought and culture are sufficient to produce the true conviction of the truth and thereby bring about liberation.  It is probable that the system of Sa@mkhya associated with Kapila and the Yoga system associated with Patanjali are but two divergent modifications of an original Sa@mkhya school, of which we now get only references here and there.  These systems therefore though generally counted as two should more properly be looked upon as two different schools of the same Sa@mkhya system—­one may be called the Kapila Sa@mkhya and the other Patanjala Sa@mkhya.

The Purva Mima@msa (from the root man to think—­rational conclusions) cannot properly be spoken of as a system of philosophy.  It is a systematized code of principles in accordance with which the Vedic texts are to be interpreted for purposes of sacrifices.

_______________________________________________________

_______________

[Footnote 1:  The word “dars’ana” in the sense of true philosophic knowledge has its earliest use in the Vais’e@sika sutras of Ka@nada (IX. ii. 13) which I consider as pre-Buddhistic.  The Buddhist pi@takas (400 B.C.) called the heretical opinions “ditthi” (Sanskrit—­dr@sti from the same root d@rs’ from which dars’ana is formed).  Haribhadra (fifth century A.D.) uses the word Dars’ana in the sense of systems of philosophy (sarvadars’anavacyo’ rtha@h—­@Sa@ddars’anasamuccaya I.).  Ratnakirtti (end of the tenth century A.D.) uses the word also in the same sense ("Yadi nama dars’ane dars’ane nanaprakaram sattvatak-@sanam uktamasti.” K@sa@nabha@ngasiddhi in Six Buddhist Nyaya tracts, p.20).  Madhava (1331 A.D.) calls his Compendium of all systems of philosophy, Sarvadars’anasa@mgra@na.  The word “mata” (opinion or view) was also freely used in quoting the views of other systems.  But there is no word to denote ‘philosophers’ in the technical sense.  The Buddhists used to call those who held heretical views “tairthika.” The words “siddha,” “jnanin,” etc. do not denote philosophers, in the modern sense, they are used rather in the sense of “seers” or “perfects.”]