Authorship Of Sastitantram

Author(s): G Oberhammer
Publisher: G Oberhammer
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269347/1

Page #1

· THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE SASTITANTRAM
by G. Oberhammer

Page #2

Ever since the historical investigation of the Samkhya philosophy has thrown more light on the development of the system and its historical relation, a work that has been the fundamental text of the speculative Samkhya school is becoming more and more important, namely, the Sastitantram. Unfortunately this principal Samkhya work has not been preserved except for some fragments and a few references, and even as regards its author tradition is full of contradictions. Some authorities speak of Pañcasikha as its author whereas from the historical consideration of the tradition we are inclined to assign its authorship to Vrṣagana1).
The material on which our study is based are the following 2): Pañcasikha: a) References: Mahabharatam XII, 218, 6 (7886) ff.; 219, 5 (7934) ff.; 320, 60 (11783); 321, 3 (11839) f.; 322, 24 (11875) ff.; - Samkhyakārikā Kā. 70; - Paramartha's commentary p. 1058, 1059 (cp. 1061); Yuktidīpikā p. 31, 24; 61, 1; 175, 8 ff.; Gauda
1) In accordance with the Chinese tradition we shall call the head of the Samkhya speculative school Vrṣagana" to distinguish him from his followers (vārṣaganāḥ) without, however, deciding whether the real name of the head of the school was Vrsagana or Varsaganya, as he is sometimes called. cp. P. Chakravarti: Origin and Development of the Samkhya System of Thought, p. 136 f.
*) Editions consulted: La Samkhyakärikä étudiée à la lumière de sa version chinoise par M.J. Takakusu (BEFEO vol. IV), Hanoi 1904. — Yuktidipika, erit. ed. by P. Chakravarti C. S. S. Nr. 23), Calcutta 1938. - Jayamangala, ed. by H. Sarma (C. S. S. Nr. 19), Calcutta 1926. Matharavṛttiḥ, ed. by P. Vishnu Prasad Sarma (Ch. S. S. Nr. 296), Benares 1922. - Samkhyadarśanam maharṣiśrīkapilapraṇītam vijñānabhikṣuviracitapravacanabhāṣyasahitam aśubodhavidyabhusananityabodhavidyaratnābhyām samskṛtam prakāśitam, Calcutta 1936. - Vijñānabhiksu: Brahmasūtrabhāṣyam (Ch. S. S. Nr. 8), Benares 1901. Tattvasamāsasūtravṛttiḥ, Bhāvāganeśadīkṣita's Tattvayatharthyadipanam, Şimānandadikṣita's Samkhyatattvavivecanam and Sarvopakārinițīka are quoted according to the Samkhyasamgraha (Ch. S. S. Nr. 246 and 286), Benares 1918-1920. Bhartṛhari: Vakyapadiyam, ed. by Carudeva Sastri, Lahore 1934. Uddyotakara: Nyāyavärttikam (K. S. S. Nr. 33), Benares 1916. Mallavādi: Dvādaśāranayacakram with the commentary of Simhasüri is quoted according to the edition of Muni Jambuvijaya, to be brought out by the Jain Atmanand Sabha shortly. - Vacaspatimisra: Nyayavarttikatātparyaṭīkā (K. S. S. Nr. 24), Benares 1925. - Şaddarśanasamuccayah by Haribhadra, ed. by L. Suali (Bibl. Ind.), Calcutta 1905.
71

Page #3

pādabhāșyam on Kā.1; (cp. Parisista of the Atharvaveda 43, 3, 1--13; Matsyapurāņam 102,8; Padmapurāņam VI, 257, 121f.; Väyupurāņam 23, 140; 101, 337); – Mātharavṛttiḥ p. 83; — Jayamangalā p. 68; — Şaddarśanasamuccayaḥ p. 96, 5; – Tattvasamāsasūtravṛttiḥ p. 125 (cp. Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam p. 51); – Tattvayāthārthyadīpanám p. 61.
b) Fragments: Sāmkhyatattvakaumudi on Kā. 2; - Tattva. vaiśāradi on Sū. I, 4 (cp. Yuktidīpikā p. 41, 25 f.); I, 25; I, 36; II, 5: II, 6; II, 13 (cp. Sāmkhyatattvakaumudi on Kā. 2); III, 13 (cp. II, 15; Yuktidīpikā p. 72, 5 f.); III, 41; – Sāmkhyapravacanasūtrāni V, 32—36; VI, 68; - Vijñānabhikṣu's Sāmkhyapravacanabhāsyam on Sū. I, 127; — Vijñānabhikṣu's Vijñānāmộtabhāșyam p. 17 (cp. Tattvasamāsasūtravșttiḥ p. 138; Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam p. 82; Sāmkhya. tattvavivecanam p. 24); - Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam p. 61 (cp. Paramārtha's commentary on Kā. 2; Gaudapādabhāșyam on Kā. 2; Mātharavșttiḥ on Kā. 22; Saddarśanasamuccayaḥ p. 96, 18f.: Kamalaśīla’s Pañjikā on Kā. 7; Tattvasamāsasūtravṛttiḥ p. 124; Sāmkhyatattvavivecanam p. 11); p. 72 (cp. Tattvasamāsasūtravrttih p. 129; Sāmkhyatattvavivecanam p. 16; Sāmkhyasūtravivaranam p. 108).
Vrşagaña: a) References: Mahābhāratam XII, 320, 59 (11782); – La vie de Vasubandhu, BEFEO tome IV (1904), p. 40; – K’uei-Ki's commentary on Vijñāptimātratāsiddhiḥ, BEFEO tome IV (1904), p. 38; — Yuktidīpikā p. 175; — Dvādaśāranayacakram p. 324, 11.
b) Fragments: Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośabhāșyam V, 63: – Yuktidīpikā p. 39, 19 (cp. p. 4, 10; Nyāyavārttikam p. 43, 10; Nyāyavārttikatātparyațīkā p. 155, 20); p. 67, 14—17; 95, 24; 108, 3 ff.; 130, 11-19; 132, 28; 133, 4f.; 170, 27 f.; – Yogabhāsyam on Sū. III, 53; - Dvādaśāranayacakram p. 314324 (vītas and āvītas for the existence of the primal matter); for the epistemology of Vrşagaṇa reconstructed from the fragments cf. E. Frauwallner: Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Sāņkhyasystems (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens, Bd. II (1958), pp. 124—126; - Vācaspatimiśra's Bhāmati on Sū. II, 1, 3 (cp. Yogabhāsyam on Sū.
72

Page #4

IV, 13: Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccayah V, 42; Dvādaśāranayacakram. p. 63. 25).
Şastitantram: References: Sāņkhyakārikā Kā. 72; -- Paramārtha's commentary on Kā. 17 (cp. Gaudapādabhāsyam on Kā. 12; Māțharavrttih on Kā. 17); – Anuyogadvārasūtram 41; – Kalpasūtram 1, 10 (cp. Yasovijaya's commentary); – Yuktidīpikā p. 175, 23; – Jayamangalā pp. 1, 7, 56, 68, 69; - Tattvavaiśāradi on Sū. IV, 13 (cp. Yogabhāsyam on Sū. IV, 13); -- Saddarśanasamuccayah p. 109, 14; – Vrsabhadeva's commentary on Vākyapadīyam I, 8; - Bhāskara’s Brahmasūtrabhāsyam on Sū. II, 1, 1; — Tattvasamāsasūtravịttiḥ p. 136; – Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam p. 80 (cp. Tattvasamāsasūtravịttih p. 135; -- Sāmkhyatattvavivecanam p. 22); - Sarvopakārinītīkā p. 93.
In order to proceed safely and methodically with the limited inaterial at our disposal we have to examine it as to its positive Testimonial value. Since quotations of different centuries have often heen juxtaposed on an equal footing, the result with respect to the author of the Şaşțitantram has inevitably been indecisive. As to our interpretation we shall adhere, therefore, to the following rules: on principle contemporary testimonies have more weight than similar reports of a later period, and later attributions of fragments will be considered correct only if they can be confirmed by contemporary literature of the same school or of its adversaries.
As the historical development of the Samkhya system is to be the framework into which we have to place the Şaşțitantram and its author, we think it necessary to give a short outline of it?). The most ancient period marked by the names of Kapila and Āsuri must be separated from the classical period of the system in which the names of the Sāņkhya-teachers Patañjali, Vrşagaña, Pañcādhikaraña, Vindhyavāsin and others play a significant role in the polemies of the time as they have come down to us. This period comes to an end with the Sāmkhyakārikā of īśvarakrṣṇa which scarcely contains any speculation of its own, but remains a mere manual of the system.
*) In this we mainly follow the exposition of E. Frauwallner. Cf. Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Bd. I, pp. 281--287. 2 Oberhammer

Page #5

According to the author it is written on the basis of another work. the Şastitantram. But, with the Kārikā the development of the Sāņkhya philosophy has come to stagnation. It is only treated and commented on by learned pandits as part of the general intellectual formation. Later on about the latter half of the Middle Ages we find a renaissance of the system marked by the redaction of the Sāņkhyasūtras in the form we have got, and by the commentaries. among others, of Vijñānabhiksu on the Samkhyasūtras and of his lisciple on the Tattvasamāsasūtras. In this development of the Sāmkhya doctrine we have to fit in the figure of Pancasikha in order to be able to decide whether he can be spoken of as the anthor of the Şaşțitantram or not.
The oldest reference to Pañcasikha in the tradition of the system is found in īśvarakrsna's short statement:
etatpavitramagryam munirūsuraye’nukampayā pradadau /
āsurirapi pañcaśikhāya tena ca bahudhā krtam tantram //'! The meaning of the phrase tena bahudhā krtam tantram hias been understood by subsequent commentators in different ways and we shall have to revert to this"). Further information about Pancasikha's historical position is presented by the commentaries on the Sāmkhya. kārikā giving more detailed lists of teachers and pupils"). Thus. the oldest commentary that has come down to us. the one translated by Paramārtha, mentions, like all other commentaries. Pañcaśikha immediately after Asuri and adds several more names of teachers after him. Therefore we can conclude that for the author whose work Paramārtha translated, the period of Pancasikha was so remote that he could cite him with Asuri either because of defi
9) Sāmkhyakārikā Kā. 70. .) See p. 82.
*) Paramārtha's commentary (BEFEO tom. IV, p. 1059): Cette connaissance vint de Kapila à Asuri, qui la transmit à Pañcaśikha. Pancasikha la donna à Hokia . (Gārgia?), Hokia à Ulūka, Ulūka à Po-po-li, Po-po-li à Isvarakrsna ....." --- Mātharavrttiḥ p. 83: sișyaparamparayāgatamiti, kapilādā suriņā prāptam idam jñānam ! tatah pañcaśikhena, tasmād bhārgavolūkavālmīkihāritadevalaprabhrtināgatam / tatastebhya Isvarakrsnena prāptam. -- Jayamangala p. 69: sisyaparamparayā ityādi / munerāsureh pañcaśikhastathā gārgagautamaprabhrtirnaramatamgramya (?) īśvarakrsnanamānam parivrajakamityanayāśisyaparamparavā.
-4

Page #6

cient tradition or because Pancasikha really was Āsuri's pupil. (Since all the commentaries show the same sequence in naming the first Sāmkhya teachers we cannot suppose that Paramārtha's author was not sufficiently informed.) Moreover, we have to take into consideration the fact that between Pañcaśikha and Iśvarakrsna several teachers are mentioned, and this strengthens the impression that Pañcaśikha belonged to an earlier period.
This impression is further confirmed by the Yuktidīpikā"). Belonging as it does to the old group of commentaries on the Sāmkhyakārikā and being remarkably well-informed about the classical period of the system, this work places Pañcaśikha together with Kapila and Āsuri as definitely forming one group of teachers who are separated from Isvarakrsna by a long line of teachers 8). As we partly know these teachers from contemporary polemics we can establish their relative period in the entire history of Indian philosophy.
Moreover, it is worth noting that the Yuktidīpikā which gives the most reliable and detailed information on the Sāmkhya schools understands the Sāmkhyakārikā's vague expression bahudhā krtam tantram in the way that Pañcaśikha has taught the system to many pupils: tena ca bahudhā krtam tantram / bahubhyo janakavasişth
dibhyah samākhyātamn"). In this connection it is interesting to inalyse the introductory verses of the Yuktidīpik, in which an attempt is made to give a short sketch of the development of the system:
) Yuktidipikā, crit. ed. by P. Chakravarti (Calcutta Sanskrit Series, No. 23), Calcutta 1938.
9) Yuktidipikā p. 175, 8-16: yathā ca paramarşirāsuraye tathū asurirapi dušamāya kumārāya bhagavatpañcaśikhāya / tena ca bahudhā krtam tantram / bahubhyo janakuvasisthādibhyah samākhyātam / asya tu śāstrasya bhagavato'gre pravrttatvāt na śāstrāntaravat vamsah sakyo varsasatasahasrairapyākhyātum/ samkşepena tu dvāv ................ häritabäddhalikairātapaurikarbheśvarapañcadhikaranapatañjalivärşaganyakaundinyamūkūdika (?) sisyaparamparayagatam bhagavāniśvarakrsnaśca sāhāyakam śāstram pūrvācāryasūtraprabandhe gurulāghavamanadriyamānah paurasthyāt vyākhyātavyā ........ na garbhamatipramādam dadatiti granthabhūyasthvamupajāyate.
9) Yuktidīpikā, p. 175, 10. Cf. Mātharavrttih on Kā. 70: pañcaśikheng tena bahudhākstam tantrambahūnām sisyānām pradattam.
caricadhikmagavānisrivamūnali hiyasthulatharay
75

Page #7

tattvam jijñāsamānāya viprāyāsuraye muniḥ / yaduvāca mahattantram duḥkhatrayanivṛttaye || 3 || na tasyadhigamah sakyah kartum varṣaśatairapi/ bhūyastvaditi sañcintya munibhiḥ sūkṣmabuddhibhiḥ || 4 || granthenalpena samkṣipya tadārṣamanusāsanam | nibaddhamamalaprajñaiḥ siṣyānām hitakāmyaya // 5 // pratipakṣaḥ punastasya puruṣeśāṇuvādinaḥ vaināsikāḥ prākṛtikā vikārapuruṣāstathā || 6 || teṣāmicchävighätärthamācāryaiḥ sükṣmabuddhibhiḥ/ racitāḥ sveṣu tantreṣu viṣamästarkagahvaraḥ ||7|| sisyairduravagähäste tattvärthabhrāntabuddhibhiḥ / tasmādīśvarakṛṣṇena samkṣiptärthamidam kṛtam || 8 || saptatyakhyam prakaranam.....10)
The analysis of this passage gives the following result: the transmission of the system is marked by four stages. The Maharşi (Kapila) teaches the extensive Samkhya to the priest Asuri (the remark on the extent of Kapila's teaching is merely an expression of the respectful esteem for the knowledge of a rși). The Muni (this is the title usually given to Pañcaśikha) reduces the system to human dimensions and renders it accessible to the pupils. Only in the third stage of the transmission is the Muni's work enlarged by the Acarya (the common expression for the teachers of the classical period in the Yuktidiīpikā) into an extensive work by discussions on the tenets of the opponents. This work has again been abridged by Isvarakṛṣṇa into his Samkhyakarika by leaving out polemics and similes 11). As there is a clear statement that the Kārikā is based upon the former comprehensive description of the Samkhya and since there is a further remark that it treats of the sixty concepts", it can be taken for certain that the work in question is the Sastitantram and that it cannot be a work of the Muni (Pañcasikha). So much for the testimony of the old commentaries.
10) Yuktidīpikā, p. 1, 6-18.
11) Samkhyakārikā Kā. 72:
saptatyam kila ye'rthaste'rthāḥ kṛtsnasya ṣastitantrasya akhyāyikävirahitaḥ paravadavivar jitāścāpi.
76

Page #8

The impression these commentaries give us is that, at the time when they were composed, namely even during the time of the Ācāryas and all the more so in the following period, Pancasikha was believed to belong to the remote past of the system's founder and his pupil Asuri. We lack the necessary sources to establish firmly how near Pañcasikha lies to Āsuri and Kapila, and must content ourselves with this general statement.
A further account on Pancabikha is presented by the Mahabhāratam, which, in spite of its not being reliable as a historical source due to its lack of a historically ascertainable structure, nevertheless enables us to make an approximate co-ordination 12). The epic speaks of Pancasikha as one of the chief representatives of the Sāņkhya (Sāmkhyamukhaḥ) 13). To the scholars at King Janaka's court in Mithila he appears as Kapila, well versed in the doctrine of final salvation, the highest bliss 14). According to the tradition of the epic Pañcasikha belongs to the old Parāśara
*) Here we base ourselves on the material gathered by V.M. Bedekar, in: Studies in Samkhya: The Teachings of Pancasikha in the Mahābhārata. We are also indebted to P. Chakravarti for his indications: op. cit. p. 80 and 113 f.
13) Mahābhāratam XII, 325, 27. We give the references according to Paul Deussen: Vier philosophische Texte des Mahābhāratam, Leipzig 1906.
") Mahābhāratam XII, 218, 6 (7886) ff.
In this connection a feature of the Sāmkhya that is very predominant in the epic and still re-echoes in the introduction of the Samkhyakārikā may be pointed out, namely Sāmkhya as a doctrine of salvation, as moksasõstram. The primary and fundamental problem of the epic texts is salvation.
nanu tvaya mokşah krtsnah pañcasikhācchrutah / sopāyah sopanisadah sopasanguh saniścayah // Mahābhāratam XII, 165)
Strangely enough the only quotation which perhaps is taken from the work of Pancasikha pañcaviņsatitattvajña is introduced in Paramārtha's commentary by the words: voici ce qui est dit dans le mokşa“ (op. cit. p. 982). We find the term moksaśāstram used for the Sāmkhya system also in the writings of Vijñānabhiksu (Samkhyapravacanabhāsyam p. 7). If we consider at the same time that especially during this period the main authorities for argumentation were chosen from the Purānas and the epic (Mokşadharma) the influence of this literature can easily be perceived. That is how the knowledge about Pancasikha has entered into the consciousness of the philosophers. And thereby the psychological basis was given for the comparatively frequent attributions of anonymously transmitted fragments to Pancasikha.

Page #9

gotram 15). Certain assumptions can be made from this fact. Asvaghosa makes the following remark in his Buddhacaritam:
jaigiṣavyo'pi janakah vṛddhaścaiva parāśarah |
imām panthānamāsāđya muktā hyanye ca mokṣinaḥ ||16)
We find here the same expression as in the Mahābhāratam. Both these passages deal with an old Parāśara who is a follower of the Samkhya; in both cases mention is made of a Janaka standing by his side. Moreover the Yuktidipikā mentions a Janaka among Pancasikha's pupils 17). Thus we can consider it as possible that Asvaghosa here refers to Pañcaśikha and this could be a terminus ad quem. Even if we do not subscribe to this view the PañcasikhaJanaka episode gives us an approximate clue to the historical position of Pañcasika. Pañcasikha must have been an important teacher (this is expressly mentioned in the epic) so that he could replace Yajnavalkya as teacher of Janaka (the fact that Yajnavalkya was the teacher of Janaka is mentioned in the Bṛhadaranyaka Upanisad) in the epic 18). The tradition that has come down to us has kept an unbroken silence concerning this important position held by Pancasikha. Besides, Pañcasikha's period must be sufficiently anterior so that historically he was sufficiently indeterminable for being introduced into an episode he was never connected with.
We may thus recapitulate the findings of the epic: Pañcasikha must have been an extraordinarily popular figure, highly esteemed and respected as a teacher. As the whole non-epic literature does not speak anything of this fact we can safely conclude that the epic has preserved a tradition that belonged to the early period of the
15) Mahabharatam XII, 325, 24.
18) Buddhacaritam XII, 67.
17) See foot-note 8.
18) Cf. R. Garbe: Samkhya-Philosophie p. 67. If the remarks of Asvaghosa and of the Yuktidipika were not influenced by the epic, one could consider the tradition as genuine and accept that the similarity in name of a pupil of Pañcasikha (or of a Samkhya-teacher closely related to Pañcaśikha) and of Janaka, the king of Videha, might have been the reason for the origin of the identification of the two pairs, Pañcasikha-Janaka and Yajnavalkya-Janaka.
78

Page #10

system, but did not exist any longer during the classical period which alone is accessible to us.
This conclusion can be corroborated on the basis of another tradition that we come across in the Puranas. Gaudapada at the beginning of his commentary on the Samkhyakārikā quotes a verse that is recited during the Rṣitarpana ceremony:
Sanakaśca Sanandanaśca trtiyaśca sanātanaḥ | Asurih Kapilascaiva vodhuḥ pañcasikhastathā || ityete brahmanah putrāḥ sapta prokta maharṣayah //19)
This verse might be derived from the same source as Matsyapurāṇam 102, 18, if not directly originated from this latter passage:
manusyamstar payedbhaktyā brahmaputrän rṣīmstathā | sanakaśca sanandaśca tṛtīyaśca sanātanaḥ || kapilaścāsuriscaiva vodhuh pañcaśikhastathā j sarve te trptimāyāntu maddattenāmbunā sadā // 20)
Naturally this passage presupposes the ceremony of sprinkling the water, and so we find the same names mentioned with the same functions also in the Tarpanavidhiḥ of the Atharvavedaparisiṣṭa: Yajnopavitam grīvāyām avalambya sanakādimanusyāms tarpayati [] sanakas tṛpyatu // sanandanas trpyatu // sanatanas tṛpyatu || kapilas trpyatu vodhus tṛpyatu asuris tṛpyatu // pañcasikhas trpyatu .. 21). Hence we are justified in concluding that
"") Gaudapadabhāṣyam on Kā. 1.
According to Garhe (op. cit. p. 64) this verse is recited daily during the Rṣitarpana ceremony. Cf. Vayupurāṇa 101, 337-338:
tatra purvagatasteṣu kumārā brahmanah sutāḥ/ sanakaśca sanandaśca tṛtiyaśca sanātanaḥ // vodhuşca kapilasteṣāmāsuriśca mahāyasāḥ/ muniḥ pañcasikhaścaiva ye canye'pyevamādayaḥ /: Padmapurana VI, 257, 121-122:
sandarśanaya yoginām sanakādimahātmanām / sanakaśca sandanaśca tṛtiyaśca sanātanaḥ // sanatkumāro jātaśca vodhuḥ pañcaśikhastathā / saptaite brahmanah putra yoginah sumahaujasaḥ// Atharvavedaparisista 43, 3, 1-7.
79

Page #11

Pancasikha had been at that time already a respected authority of the past. Otherwise his name would not have found entrance into the mantram of the Rşitarpaņa ceremony. Thus our conclusion from the epic is strengthened. The classical tradition of the Sāmkhya has placed Pañcaśikha deliberately on the same footing with Kapila and Āsuri, for he was at that time held to be among the great authorities of the school in an early, not more clearly definable, stage.
Now we come to the decisive argument: Pañcasikha was nothing more than a name to them. With the exception of two passages in the Yuktidīpikā 22) no mention whatever is made in any Sāmkhya work of the classical period concerning his teachings. All the fray. ments that are usually associated with his name are not attributed to him till centuries later. That the silence of the school regarding Pañcaśikha is not accidental is shown by the fact that his name is never mentioned in the polemics that have come down to us; neither is he attacked nor discussed; he is no longer a Sāmkhya teacher worthy of being taken into account since he has been surpassed long ayo by the later philosophers of the system. All that remaineel was his name and fame.
But what about the fragments in the Yoyabhāsyam which are. clearly ascribed to Pañcaśikha by Vācaspatimiśra? We shall first examine the value of the historical testimony given by Vācaspatimiśra concerning Pañcaśikha. If we fix ca. 500 A. D. for the Yogabhāșyam, Vācaspati appears at least 300 years later, and the interval between Vācaspati and Pañcaśikha is several centuries more. So the testimony of Vācaspati on that question would have weight only if there are other cogent reasons to attribute these fragments to Pancasikha, but we lack such reasons. On the contrary, whenever an old source like the Yuktidīpikā preserves one of these fragments and mentions its author, we find that Vācaspati's attribution is not correct. If Vācaspati ascribes the quotation: ekam eva darsanam
) Yuktidípikā, p. 31, 24: iha bhavatām pañcasikhanām pañcavimsatitattvāni and p. 61, 1: asmatpakşe'pi turhi bhagavatpañcusikhädinām pratyaksatvāt sutkāryamabhyupagantavyam.
80

Page #12

khyātireva darsanam 3) to Pañcasikha, the Yuktidīpikā mentions it as taken from the Sāstram 24), a work which is cited in several places in the same text. Further the quotation rūpātiśayā ..... pravartante in the Yogabhāsyam is also attributed to Pañcasikha. by Vācaspati 25), whereas the Yuktidīpikā attributes it to Vrsagana 26), who appears to be well known to this work even to the very details of his teachings. This fact makes this attribution absolutely authentic.
Thus three quotations in the Yogabhāsyam have already been verified as being Vrsagaņa’s. The fragment in the Yogabhāsyam on III, 53: mūrtivyavadhi jātibhedābhāvānnāsti mūlaprthaktvam is attributed to Vrşagaņa by the Bhāsyam itself. The fragment in the Yogabhāşyam on III, 13 is the above-discussed, which is mentioned once more in the Bhāsyam on II, 15, and is verified as Vrşagama's by the Yuktidīpikā. The fragment in the Bhāsyam on IV, 13: gunuinam paramam rūpam ..... sutucchakam is attributed to Vrşagaña by Vācaspati, which he (Vācaspati) himself states in another place to be a doctrine of the Şaştitantram 27). Finally the fragment in the Yoyabhāsyam on III, 14: jalabhūmyoḥ ..... abhivyaktir is ascertained as Vrsagana's through Simhasūri's com. mentary on the Nayacakram 28). From what we have seen we can conclude that Vrsagaña is one of the chief authorities for the Yogabhāsyam on the speculative problems of the Sāmkhya metaphysics. These findings are based on sources older than Vācaspati and are therefore historically more reliable. It is quite the opposite with regard to the Pañcaśikha-fragments which are nothing but anonymous quotations attributed to Pañcaśikha by Vācaspati alone several hundred years later and so cannot be accepted as really such.
3) Tattvavaisāradi on Y.S. I, 1. **) Yuktidipikā, p. 41, 25 f. 5) Tattvavaisāradi on Y.S. III, 13.
20) Yuklidipikā, p. 72, 5f.: tathā ca bhagavān vārsaganyah pathati rūpātiśayā rrtlyatisayāśca viruddhyante, sāmānyāni tvatiśayaih saha vartante.
9) Tattvavaiśāradi on Y. S. IV, 13. Cf. Bhāmati on Br. S. II, 1, 3: ata eva yoga. sästram vyut padayitā āha sma bhagavān vārşaganyah.
8) Dvadasāranayacakram, p. 320, 2—4. Cf. Yuktidipikā, p. 81, 21 f.
81

Page #13

But how could it happen that a scholar of Vacaspatimiśra's standing attributed anonymous quotations to Pañcasikha? The answer is simple. He was convinced that they were fragments of Pancasikha's work. We shall understand this if we examine the origin of the assertion that Pañcaśikha was the author of the Şaştitantram. The commentary translated by Paramartha into Chinese ca. 550 A. D. speaks of a work of Pañcasikha containing 60.000 verses 29). The same commentary tells us in another passage that the Sixty Categories - generally known as the subject-matter of the Şastitantram had been the subject of this work of 60.000 verses 30). How was such a thing possible? To begin with, Paramartha's author had wrongly interpreted Iśvarakṛṣṇa's remark tena bahudhā kṛtam tantram, as he understood it to mean that Pañcasikha had written a large work. Besides, he must have known Pañcaśikha as he is portrayed in the epic, so that he could consider him as the important representative of the Samkhya system. If we now, recall to mind the fact that the name Saṣṭitantram could denote a definite work as well as the Samkhya system of the classical period itself the relationship between Pañcasikha and Sastitantram becomes easily understandable. In other words, Paramartha's informant transferred the idea he had about the classical Samkhya system, namely the Şaştitantram, to Pañcasikha's supposedly voluminous work of which he could now say that it dealt with the Sixty Concepts. On the basis of this fact a later period attributed to Pañcaśikha also the special work called Şaṣṭitantram. This attribution became all the more possible since the knowledge about its real author was steadily fading while the name of Pañcaśikha was kept alive through the centuries, thanks to the epic and its tradition. But the historical truth has been thereby distorted. In a later commentary on the Samkhyakārikā, the Jayamangala, the author of the Sastitantram is in fact identified with Pañcaśikha 31). Obviously that commentary
2) Paramartha's commentary: loc. cit. p. 1059.
3) Loc. cit. p. 1061.
"Jayamangala on Kā. 70: tena iti / pañcaśikhena muninā bahudhā kṛtam luntram/sastitantrākhyam ṣastikhandam kṛtam iti.
82

Page #14

till knows something from the Şaşțitantram, but no more from the original as is clear from the fact that, while enumerating the ten Mūlikārthas, a Samgrahakāra is mentioned as the source of information, .and that the classification of the inference deviates from the original form in the Şastitantram. The above-mentioned identification has been possible because of this fact.
As has already been correctly pointed out by Hara Datta Sarma 32), Vācaspati refers very probably to an opinion of the Jayamangalā in his Tattvakaumudi on Kā. 51, and so presupposes the former. Therefore he might really have been of the opinion that the Şastitantram and the tradition of the school connected with it originated from Pañcaśikha. If we are in a position to show now that the fragments in the Yogabhāsyam attributed to Pañcaśikha by Vācaspati are really frayments of Vrsagana or of his school, our explanation of Facaspati's error would certainly carry weight when we shall prove that the Şaşțitantram was Vrşagana's work. This proof holds good for part of the fragments.
First we shall consider the person of Vrsagaņa. Tradition regarding him begins with Vasubandhu who makes mention of the followers of Vrşagana. In Paramartha's „Life of Vasuhandhu“ we meet with Vrsagana having a mythical form as the teacher of Vindhyavāsin 33) and therefore he must have lived about one and a half generations before the junior Vasubandhu34). Moreover we learn through K’ueiKi's commentary on the Vijñāptimātratāsiddhiḥ that he was the head of a Sāmkhya schools), a fact which is known to us also from the Yuktidīpikā as Vrsagana's followers are often mentioned there.
*** Haradatta Sarma: Jayamangal, and the other Commentaries on Sāmkhya Saptati, p. 428 f. (IHQ Vol IV, Calcutta 1928). | *) BEFEO tom IV, p. 40 f.
36) In reckoning the period of the junior Vasubandhu we follow E. Frauwallner: On the Date of the Buddhist Master of Law Vasubandhu (Serie Orientale Roma, vol. III), Roma 1951, p. 55 f.
*) BEFEO tom. IV, p. 38: „Parmi ses disciples ,les principaux formaient dix. kuit groupes dont le chef était appelé Fa-li-cha (varsa) ce qui signifie «pluie, parce qu'il était né pendant la saison des pluies. Ses compagnons étaient nommés les hérétiques de la «troupe de la pluie» (vārsaganya)." Cf, also Vasubandhu, Abhiharmakosah V, 63 f.: ,,Vous n'avez plus qu'à joindre l'école des Varsaganyas ..."

Page #15

This testimony of Paramārtha is corroborated by other evidences. For instance, as we saw, Vrsagaña is quoted by Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakośa 36), Dignāga attacks his teachings while he deals with the Sāmkhya 37); Uddyotakara refutes his definition of perception 38), and Simhasūri also commenting on the Dvādaśāranayacakram considers Vrşagaña as the representative of the system and tries to refute him 39). All these facts show sufficiently that Vrsagana was the most important representative of the Sāņkhya from the fourth century upto the time when the Sāņkhyakārikā in its easily understandable form displaced the somewhat difficult and large work of Vrsagaña, the only one to be dealt with by the opponents.
From Simhasūri's commentary on Mallavādi's · Dvādaśāranaya. cakram we are able to recover rather long fragments of this teacher. which give us an idea of his work 40). The merit of having reconstructed Vrsagaña's theory of cognition by means of these fragments and others goes to E. Frauwallner, thanks to whose work we car prove Vrşagana's influence on the later period' - as for instance, on the Vșttikāra in Sabara's Bhāşyam +1), on Candramati *9) and, as much as we can see from the fragments, on the Sāmkhyakārikā itself which, while proving the existence of the primal matter; enumerates the five proofs of Vrsagaña -3). But if we leave the classical period of the system and consider the later commentators, we observe that all that was known about Vrsagana's work and person gradually disappears. He is no longer cited, his doctrine is no longer
34) See note 35. 31) See note 39.
38) Nyāyavārttikam, p. 43, 10 (K. S. S. No. 33); cf. Tātparyatikā, p. 155, 26 (K. S. S. No. 24) and Yuktidīpikā, p. 4, 10 and p. 39, 14.
39) For some material on this point see E. Frauwallner: Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Sāmkhya-Systems (Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ost. asiens, Bd. II, Wien 1958), p. 123–126.
40) Ibidem.
4) Cf. E. Frauwallner: Candramati und sein Dasapadārthaśāstram (Studia Indologica, Festschrift für Willibald Kirfel zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. Bonn 1955), p. 78.
**) E. Frauwallner: Candramati loc. cit. p. 79 f. 5) Sāmkhyakārika Kā. 15.
84

Page #16

dealt with in polemics and it is possible that a scholar of Vacaspati's rank knows only a few fragments of his work and considers him, who was once the most famous teacher of the Samkhya, as a representative of the Yoga system and attributes genuine Vrsaganafragments to Pañcasikha.
If we now recapitulate the results we have arrived at, we get the portrait of a teacher who can be exactly fitted in historically and whose work has had a wide influence upon the development of the school and the philosophy of the time. This is a portrait quite contrary to the one resulting from our study of Pañcasikha who is not known to the classical period through any fragment and who was too remote to be noted by the philosophy of the time. And thereby the question of the authorship of the Şaşțitantram is already decided. But let us first examine the expression,,Sastitantram". Şastitantram means a system of sixty concepts". This expression occurs in the Samkhyakārikā **), its commentaries and some passages of the Jainas ). This means that this expression is attested
**) Sāmkhyakārikā Kā. 72.
5) Sometimes we come across passages in which the Sastitantram is attributed to Kapila. For instance, in Kalpanasutra I, 10 we find the expression sattitantavisarae wich is commented on by Yasovijaya as sastitantram kapilaśāstram, tatra visaradah panditah; Bhaskara says in his Brahmasūtrabhāṣyam on Br. S. II, 1, 1: yadi brahmaivopādāna karanam nimittakaranam ca tatah kapilamaharṣipranitasastitantrakhyasmṛter anavakaso nirviṣayatvam... To conclude on the basis of such and similar passages, as does Udayana Sastri, that the Sastitantram is Kapila's work is unjustifiable. Such passages are easily to be derived from the identification of the Samkhya system with the Sastitantram, and they mean nothing more than that the Samkhya system had been founded by Kapila.
The same is to be said of the question of the Sastitantram in the Ahirbudhnyasamhita that has been raised by Schrader and recently resumed by V. M. Bedekar. Bedekar says in his essay,,The Development of the Samkhya and the Problem of the Sastitantram" that, in order to solve the problem of the Sastitantram in a satisfactory manner, the Sastitantram of the Ahirbudhnyasamhita must also be explained. To this we may say that we are talking of a Sastitantram meaning a definite text that is historically ascertainable. That text is, as far as we know, entirely different from the so-called Şastitantram of the Pañcaratra work. Only in the first case is the name Şastitantram deduced logically and organically from the teachings of the school, namely from the system of the sixty concepts. In the Ahirbudhnyasamhita we find, in the contents of the Samkhya system, categories
85

Page #17

for us concerning the classical period alone, and indeed clearly as the title of a definite work. Only when the work bad become typical for the system could the name of the work be used for the Sāmkhya system as such as it also had become a system of sixty concepts. And there is, as far as we can see from the sources, only one work in the classical period to represent the Sāmkhya system, namely, Vrşagana's work, which is attested as vārsaganyatantram +6). This must be identical with the Şastitantram the author of which can thereby be ascertained as Vrsagana. · Finally we want to touch upon a question that is only partly con. nected with the subject matter of our article. Surveying the Sāmkhya literature we meet with the following peculiar fact: at the end of the Middle Ages, far more than a thousand years after Pancasikha. his name is connected all on a sudden with quotations that were handed down until that time anonymously. What is to be said of that?
1. As we said above, the situation at that time was propitious for
which are absolutely foreign to it. Hence we can conclude that this name has found entrance into the sectarian text only in a secondary sense. The passage in the Ahirbudhnyasamhițā, therefore, cannot be used for an evaluation of the original work. Cf. E. Frauwallner: Geschichte der Indischen Philosophie, Bd. l. p. 480, note 177. Further in this case the word Şastitantram does not seem to us to mean a definite work, but only one of those various forms of Sāmkhya philosophy which were closely connected with the Purana literature, since there is a plurality of such systems expressly mentioned: Şastitantrānyathaikaikam eşim nānāvidham mune (Ahirbudhnyasamhitā XII, 30). Thus the Şastitantram of the Samhitā has nothing to do with the Şastitantram, the most important text of the classical period, although it would have to be considered, of course, in a descrip. tion of the whole 'history of the Samkhya philosophy.
18) Dvadasāranayacakram, p. 324, 11. Besides this general consideration, we can also bring forward a textual argument for the identification of Vārsaganyatantram with the Şastitantram. Thus we find that the five proofs for the existence of primal matter given by Simhasūri in his commentary on Dvādaśāranayacakram as Vrsagana's are identical with those found in the Sāmkhyakärikā, Kā. 15. As Isvarakrsna himself states that he gave an exact summary of the Şaştitantram and since we do not find any evidence for the existence of an important work other than the Vārsaganyatantram, we can conclude that Isvarakrsna reproduces in Kārikā 15 the five proofs from Vrsagana, and consequently the Varsaganyatanıranı is identical with the Şastitantram.
86

Page #18

a thing like this. Besides the epic tradition of the Mokşadharma and the Purānas in which Pancasikha is mentioned as the chief Sāmkhya teacher, we have no other tradition whatever of him. At the same time hardly anything but the names of the old teachers of the classic time were known. To this could be added the fact that the name of a Pancasikha is mentioned in two passages of the Sāņkhyasūtras, the main text of the Sāmkhya Renaissance +7).
2. R. Garbe +) and F. Hall*) before him have called our attention to the fact that the fragments ascribed to Pancasikha in the Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam of Bhāvāgaṇeśa are all to be found in the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttih"). According to Garbe this work was attributed to Pañcaśikha in all the manuscripts known to him . As Bhāvāganeśa himself states in the introduction to his work:
samīsasūtrūnyőlambya vyākhyām pañcaśikhasya ca i
bhāvāganeśaḥ kurute tattvayathārthyadīpanam // 32) . F. Hall and later more decidedly R. Garbe had concluded that the fragments in question have been ascribed by mistake to Pañcaśikha hy Bhāvāganesa, for he had thought that the Tattvasamāsasūtravittih was a work of Pancasikha.
Although Garbe was right in saying that the attribution of these fragments by Bhāvāganesa to Pañcasikha was wrong, yet his argument is not fully convincing. First of all Garbe considered, upon the authority of Vācaspati, the fragments in the Yogabhāşyam as
+7) Sāmkhyasūtras V, 32 ff. and VI, 68.
*) R. Garbe: Sámkhya-Philosophie, 2nd edit. p. 68, footnote 2. The argument of Garbe against the sloka adyas tu mokso etc, holds good also for all the other Pancasik ha-fragments in Bhāvāganesa's work.
"") Sāmkhya-Sāra, a Treatise of Sāmkhya Philosophy by Vijñānabhiksu, ed. hy F. Hall, Calcutta 1862, p. 23 f.
) Tattvasamāsasūtravrttih (Samkhyasamgraha, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. No. 286, Benares 1920, p. 117–140). This work is identical with the work edited by Ballantyne under the title ,,Kramadipikā: A Lecture on the Samkhya Philo. sophy, embracing the text of the Tattvasamāsa", printed for the use of the Benares College, Mirzarpore 1850.
5) loc. cit.
2) Bhāvāganesa Diksita: Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam (Sāmkhyasamgraha, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series No. 246, Benares 1918), p. 51.

Page #19

genuine fragments of Pañcasikha. Therefore he was of the opinion that Pañcasikha's work had been written in prose, so that the metrical fragments later ascribed to him were suspicious to him as a matter of course. Today we know that Pancasikha's work cannot be said to be written either in prose or in verse, since we have no fragment which we can with certainty ascribe to him.
Furthermore it is possible to prove that Bhāvāganesa depended on the Tattvasamāsasūtravṛttiḥ to a greater extent than Garbe supposed it to be 53). But now the question arises why Bhāvāganesa did not cite also the much longer quotations from the Vrttiḥ under the name of Pañcaśikha. Why does he connect with this name only passages that are given in the Vșttiḥ itself as quotations? 54) On the basis of Garbe's argument one would expect that the quotations appearing as Pañcaśikha-fragments in the Tattvayāthārthyadīpanam should not be considered by Bhāvāganeśa as Pañcaśikha's, and that those cited anonymously should appear as Pancasikha's. Further it is hard to believe that Bhāvāganesa considered the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttiḥ as a work of Pañcasikha, he (Pancasikha) himself being quoted there 55). Bhāvāganesa could not have failed to observe this fact, for he cites this special passage word for word with the namre of Pancasikha 56). Summing up, we have to say that Garbe's explanation of the appearance of Pancasikha-fragments in the work of Bhāvāganeśa seems to be only partially correct.
3. Even if we accept this explanation there are still three passages of Pañcaśikha-fragments left unexplained:
a) The quotation as given by Vijñānabhikṣu in his Bhāșyam on
58) Bhāvāganesa makes excerpts from the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttih word for word on pp. 61, 63, 71 f., 74, 75, 80, 81 without, however, mentioning the source.
5) The fragment pañcavimšatitattvajña etc. is found in the writings of Paramārtha on Kā. 2 and in those of other authors. The fragment ādau tu mokso etc. is introduced by the words uktam ca in the Vrttih, as is also the case with the fragment prakrtena tu bandhena etc. The fragment tattvāni yo vedayati etc. is cited as well by the Sāmkhyatattvavivecanam (Samkhyasamgraha, p. 16) and Samkhyasūtravivaranam (Samkhyasamgraha, p. 108), though in a slightly modi. fied form.
5) Tattvasamāsasūtravrttih, p. 125. 58) Tattvayāthärthyadīpanam, p. 61.
88

Page #20

S. S. I, 127 differs so much from the text of the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttiḥ that, in order to derive it from the Vṛttiḥ, one must consider it as a paraphrase.
b) The Pañcaśikha fragment in S. S. V, 32 ff. is not derivable from it at all - a fact which made Garbe consider it as a genuine fragment of Pañcasikha.
c) The Pañcaśikha-fragment in S. S. VI, 68, likewise, is not to be found in the Tattvasamāsasūtravṛttiḥ.
This shows that the name of a Pañcasikha appeared in the Samkhya Renaissance even independently of the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttiḥ, allegedly attributed to Pañcasikha. Yet we shall consider more closely the Pañcaśikha-fragment in S. S. V, 32. It deals with a problem that arose from the elaboration of the theory of inference, namely, the problem of vyaptiḥ. With the words adheyaśaktiyoga iti Pañcasikhaḥ, the definition of vyapti of a Pañcasikha is given. The problem of vyaptiḥ is, however, a fresh one. In its oldest form it can be traced back to Vrsagana's question about the nature of the sambandhah 57). But that seems to be much more archaic than the theory of the Pancasikha of the Samkhyasūtras, and it presupposes a much higher level of abstraction in the posing of the problem than Vrsagana's. Further it must be observed that, since we can survey roughly the development of the theory of inference, a doctrine of vyaptiḥ such as we find it in Pañcasikha's fragment cannot be historically fitted into the period of the old Pañcasikha. Thus we can conclude that the teacher who defined vyāptiḥ as adheyaśaktiyogaḥ is to be dated later than Vrsagana and cannot possibly be identified with the old Pancaśikha. As to whether the hypothesis of a younger Pancasikha is to be accepted on these grounds cannot yet be decided on the material available at the moment. In addition to this, two other sections of the Samkhya tradition will also have to be examined: the Tattvasamāsasūtras and the Samkhyasūtras.
57) E. Frauwallner: Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhyasystems, WZKSO Bd. II, p. 123. Cf. Jayamangalā, pp. 8, 9-15 and Nyayavārttikatātparyaṭīkā, p. 165, 2 (K. S. S. No. 24).
89

Page #21

We have now come to the end of our study of the author of the Şaşțitantram, and we can thus sum up the results of our research:
1. All the traditions point to Pancasikha' as a Sāmkhya authority of the early period of the system.
2. During the classical period of the system in which we have to place the Şastitantram hardly anything more than the name of Pañcaśikha is known whereas Vrşagaña is clearly verified to helong to the period in question. He is the author of the fundamental work of the school of the time. This work can be reconstructed to a great extent by means of fragments, and it is identical with the Şasțitantram.
3. The authority of Vācaspati concerning the attribution of the anonymous quotations in the Yogabhāşyam to Pañcaśikha is entirely insufficient. On the contrary, we can show in four cases that Vrsagaña is the Sāmkhya-authority for the Bhāsyakāra.
4. Due to the fading knowledge about Vrşagaņa during the post. classical period the knowledge about Pañcaśikha as a predominant Sámkhya-teacher, kept alive in the epic and the Purāņas, comes to the foreground, until at last, supported by the incorrect interpretation of Isvarakļşna's testimony, Pañcaśikha takes Vrşagaņa’s. place as the author of the Şaşțitantram. The mistake of Vācaspati is to be attributed to this circumstance.
5. At the time of the Sāņkhya Renaissance the epic portrait of Pañcaśikha is practically the only trace which remained of the old tradition. Besides, at the same time we come across the doctrine of a Pancasikha concerning the problem of the vyāptiḥ so that now the name of the old teacher of the same name revived.
BIBLIOGRAPHY (We give here only the literature not mentioned by Garbe in his
„Die Samkhya-Philosophie")
V. M. Bedekar: Studies in Sāmkhya: Pañcaśikha and Cäraka (ABORI, vol. 38.
pp. 140-147), Poona 1958. V.M. Bedekar: Studies in Samkhya: The Teachings of Pancasikha in the Maha
bhārata (ABORI, vol. 38, pp. 233—244), Poona 1958.
90

Page #22
V. M. Bedekar: The Development of the Samkhya and the Problem of the Sastitantra (Journal of the University of Poona, Humanities Section, No. 11, pp. 37-49), Poona 1959. P.B. Cakravarti: Origin and Development of the Samkhya system of Thought (Calcutta Sanskrit Series, No. 30), Calcutta 1951. S. N. Dasgupta: History of Indian Philosophy, vol. I, Cambridge 1951. E. Frauwallner: Geschichte der Indischen Philosophie, Bd. I, Salzburg 1953. E. Frauwallner: Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhya-Systems (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens, Bd. II, pp. 84-139), Wien 1958. R. Garbe: Die Sankhya-Philosophie, eine Darstellung des Indischen Rationalis. mus, Leipzig 1917. M. Hiriyanna: Sastitantra and Vnsagana (JORM vol. III, pp. 107-112), Madras 1929. G. Kaviraj: Introduction to the Jayamangala ed. by H. Sarma (Calcutta Oriental Series No. 19), Calcutta 1926. F.M. Novotny: Die Samkhya-Philosophie auf Grund der Yuktidipika und der Fragmente der Werke alter Samkhya-Lehrer, Dissertation, Wien 1941. H. D. Sarma: The Samkhya Teachers (Festschrift Winternitz, pp. 225-231), Leipzig 1933. F.O. Schrader: Das Sastitantra (ZDMG Bd. 68, pp. 101-110). Udaya Vira Sastri: Antiquity of the Samkhya Sutras (Fifth India Oriental Con ference, Proceedings and Transactions, vol. 2, pp. 855 ff.), Lahore 1930. Udaya Vira Sastri: Samkhyadarsan ka Itihas, Jvalapur 1950. Udaya Vira Sastri: Kapila aor Sastitantra Visvajyoti, April 1958, pp. 12--15). Hoshiarpur 1958. Druck: Bruder Hollinek, Wien III, Steingasse 25