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 Pancasikha as its author whereas from the historical consideration of the tradition we are inclined to assign its authorship to Vrsagana1). The material on which our study is based are the following 2): Pancasikha: a) References: Mahabharatam XII, 218, 6 (7886) ff.; 219, 5 (7934) ff.; 320, 60 (11783); 321, 3 (11839) f.; 322, 24 (11875) ff.; - Samkhyakarika Ka. 70; - Paramartha's commentary p. 1058, 1059 (cp. 1061); Yuktidipika 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 Vrsagana" to distinguish him from his followers (varsaganah) 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 Samkhyakarika etudiee a la lumiere 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. Matharavrttih, ed. by P. Vishnu Prasad Sarma (Ch. S. S. Nr. 296), Benares 1922. - Samkhyadarsanam maharsisrikapilapranitam vijnanabhiksuviracitapravacanabhasyasahitam asubodhavidyabhusananityabodhavidyaratnabhyam samskrtam prakasitam, Calcutta 1936. - Vijnanabhiksu: Brahmasutrabhasyam (Ch. S. S. Nr. 8), Benares 1901. Tattvasamasasutravrttih, Bhavaganesadiksita's Tattvayatharthyadipanam, Simanandadiksita's Samkhyatattvavivecanam and Sarvopakarinitika are quoted according to the Samkhyasamgraha (Ch. S. S. Nr. 246 and 286), Benares 1918-1920. Bhartrhari: Vakyapadiyam, ed. by Carudeva Sastri, Lahore 1934. Uddyotakara: Nyayavarttikam (K. S. S. Nr. 33), Benares 1916. Mallavadi: Dvadasaranayacakram with the commentary of Simhasuri is quoted according to the edition of Muni Jambuvijaya, to be brought out by the Jain Atmanand Sabha shortly. - Vacaspatimisra: Nyayavarttikatatparyatika (K. S. S. Nr. 24), Benares 1925. - Saddarsanasamuccayah by Haribhadra, ed. by L. Suali (Bibl. Ind.), Calcutta 1905. 71

Page #3
padabhasyam on Ka.1; (cp. Parisista of the Atharvaveda 43, 3, 1--13; Matsyapuranam 102,8; Padmapuranam VI, 257, 121f.; Vayupuranam 23, 140; 101, 337); - Matharavrttih p. 83; -- Jayamangala p. 68; -- Saddarsanasamuccayah p. 96, 5; - Tattvasamasasutravrttih p. 125 (cp. Tattvayatharthyadipanam p. 51); - Tattvayatharthyadipanam p. 61. b) Fragments: Samkhyatattvakaumudi on Ka. 2; - Tattva. vaisaradi on Su. I, 4 (cp. Yuktidipika p. 41, 25 f.); I, 25; I, 36; II, 5: II, 6; II, 13 (cp. Samkhyatattvakaumudi on Ka. 2); III, 13 (cp. II, 15; Yuktidipika p. 72, 5 f.); III, 41; - Samkhyapravacanasutrani V, 32--36; VI, 68; - Vijnanabhiksu's Samkhyapravacanabhasyam on Su. I, 127; -- Vijnanabhiksu's Vijnanamotabhasyam p. 17 (cp. Tattvasamasasutravsttih p. 138; Tattvayatharthyadipanam p. 82; Samkhya. tattvavivecanam p. 24); - Tattvayatharthyadipanam p. 61 (cp. Paramartha's commentary on Ka. 2; Gaudapadabhasyam on Ka. 2; Matharavsttih on Ka. 22; Saddarsanasamuccayah p. 96, 18f.: Kamalasila's Panjika on Ka. 7; Tattvasamasasutravrttih p. 124; Samkhyatattvavivecanam p. 11); p. 72 (cp. Tattvasamasasutravrttih p. 129; Samkhyatattvavivecanam p. 16; Samkhyasutravivaranam p. 108). Vrsagana: a) References: Mahabharatam XII, 320, 59 (11782); - La vie de Vasubandhu, BEFEO tome IV (1904), p. 40; - K'uei-Ki's commentary on Vijnaptimatratasiddhih, BEFEO tome IV (1904), p. 38; -- Yuktidipika p. 175; -- Dvadasaranayacakram p. 324, 11. b) Fragments: Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakosabhasyam V, 63: - Yuktidipika p. 39, 19 (cp. p. 4, 10; Nyayavarttikam p. 43, 10; Nyayavarttikatatparyatika p. 155, 20); p. 67, 14--17; 95, 24; 108, 3 ff.; 130, 11-19; 132, 28; 133, 4f.; 170, 27 f.; - Yogabhasyam on Su. III, 53; - Dvadasaranayacakram p. 314324 (vitas and avitas for the existence of the primal matter); for the epistemology of Vrsagana reconstructed from the fragments cf. E. Frauwallner: Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Sankhyasystems (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ostasiens, Bd. II (1958), pp. 124--126; - Vacaspatimisra's Bhamati on Su. II, 1, 3 (cp. Yogabhasyam on Su. 72

Page #4
IV, 13: Dignaga's Pramanasamuccayah V, 42; Dvadasaranayacakram. p. 63. 25). Sastitantram: References: Sankhyakarika Ka. 72; -- Paramartha's commentary on Ka. 17 (cp. Gaudapadabhasyam on Ka. 12; Matharavrttih on Ka. 17); - Anuyogadvarasutram 41; - Kalpasutram 1, 10 (cp. Yasovijaya's commentary); - Yuktidipika p. 175, 23; - Jayamangala pp. 1, 7, 56, 68, 69; - Tattvavaisaradi on Su. IV, 13 (cp. Yogabhasyam on Su. IV, 13); -- Saddarsanasamuccayah p. 109, 14; - Vrsabhadeva's commentary on Vakyapadiyam I, 8; - Bhaskara's Brahmasutrabhasyam on Su. II, 1, 1; -- Tattvasamasasutravittih p. 136; - Tattvayatharthyadipanam p. 80 (cp. Tattvasamasasutravittih p. 135; -- Samkhyatattvavivecanam p. 22); - Sarvopakarinitika 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 Sastitantram 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 Sastitantram 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 Asuri must be separated from the classical period of the system in which the names of the Sankhya-teachers Patanjali, Vrsagana, Pancadhikarana, Vindhyavasin 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 Samkhyakarika of isvarakrsna 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 Sastitantram. But, with the Karika the development of the Sankhya 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 Sankhyasutras in the form we have got, and by the commentaries. among others, of Vijnanabhiksu on the Samkhyasutras and of his lisciple on the Tattvasamasasutras. In this development of the Samkhya 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 Sastitantram or not. The oldest reference to Pancasikha in the tradition of the system is found in isvarakrsna's short statement: etatpavitramagryam munirusuraye'nukampaya pradadau / asurirapi pancasikhaya tena ca bahudha krtam tantram //'! The meaning of the phrase tena bahudha 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 Samkhya. karika giving more detailed lists of teachers and pupils"). Thus. the oldest commentary that has come down to us. the one translated by Paramartha, mentions, like all other commentaries. Pancasikha immediately after Asuri and adds several more names of teachers after him. Therefore we can conclude that for the author whose work Paramartha translated, the period of Pancasikha was so remote that he could cite him with Asuri either because of defi 9) Samkhyakarika Ka. 70. .) See p. 82. *) Paramartha's commentary (BEFEO tom. IV, p. 1059): Cette connaissance vint de Kapila a Asuri, qui la transmit a Pancasikha. Pancasikha la donna a Hokia . (Gargia?), Hokia a Uluka, Uluka a Po-po-li, Po-po-li a Isvarakrsna ....." --- Matharavrttih p. 83: sisyaparamparayagatamiti, kapilada surina praptam idam jnanam ! tatah pancasikhena, tasmad bhargavolukavalmikiharitadevalaprabhrtinagatam / tatastebhya Isvarakrsnena praptam. -- Jayamangala p. 69: sisyaparamparaya ityadi / munerasureh pancasikhastatha gargagautamaprabhrtirnaramatamgramya (?) isvarakrsnanamanam parivrajakamityanayasisyaparamparava. -4

Page #6
cient tradition or because Pancasikha really was Asuri's pupil. (Since all the commentaries show the same sequence in naming the first Samkhya teachers we cannot suppose that Paramartha's author was not sufficiently informed.) Moreover, we have to take into consideration the fact that between Pancasikha and Isvarakrsna several teachers are mentioned, and this strengthens the impression that Pancasikha belonged to an earlier period. This impression is further confirmed by the Yuktidipika"). Belonging as it does to the old group of commentaries on the Samkhyakarika and being remarkably well-informed about the classical period of the system, this work places Pancasikha together with Kapila and Asuri 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 Yuktidipika which gives the most reliable and detailed information on the Samkhya schools understands the Samkhyakarika's vague expression bahudha krtam tantram in the way that Pancasikha has taught the system to many pupils: tena ca bahudha krtam tantram / bahubhyo janakavasisth dibhyah samakhyatamn"). In this connection it is interesting to inalyse the introductory verses of the Yuktidipik, in which an attempt is made to give a short sketch of the development of the system: ) Yuktidipika, crit. ed. by P. Chakravarti (Calcutta Sanskrit Series, No. 23), Calcutta 1938. 9) Yuktidipika p. 175, 8-16: yatha ca paramarsirasuraye tathu asurirapi dusamaya kumaraya bhagavatpancasikhaya / tena ca bahudha krtam tantram / bahubhyo janakuvasisthadibhyah samakhyatam / asya tu sastrasya bhagavato'gre pravrttatvat na sastrantaravat vamsah sakyo varsasatasahasrairapyakhyatum/ samksepena tu dvav ................ haritabaddhalikairatapaurikarbhesvarapancadhikaranapatanjalivarsaganyakaundinyamukudika (?) sisyaparamparayagatam bhagavanisvarakrsnasca sahayakam sastram purvacaryasutraprabandhe gurulaghavamanadriyamanah paurasthyat vyakhyatavya ........ na garbhamatipramadam dadatiti granthabhuyasthvamupajayate. 9) Yuktidipika, p. 175, 10. Cf. Matharavrttih on Ka. 70: pancasikheng tena bahudhakstam tantrambahunam sisyanam pradattam. caricadhikmagavanisrivamunali hiyasthulatharay 75

Page #7
tattvam jijnasamanaya viprayasuraye munih / yaduvaca mahattantram duhkhatrayanivrttaye || 3 || na tasyadhigamah sakyah kartum varsasatairapi/ bhuyastvaditi sancintya munibhih suksmabuddhibhih || 4 || granthenalpena samksipya tadarsamanusasanam | nibaddhamamalaprajnaih sisyanam hitakamyaya // 5 // pratipaksah punastasya purusesanuvadinah vainasikah prakrtika vikarapurusastatha || 6 || tesamicchavighatarthamacaryaih suksmabuddhibhih/ racitah svesu tantresu visamastarkagahvarah ||7|| sisyairduravagahaste tattvarthabhrantabuddhibhih / tasmadisvarakrsnena samksiptarthamidam krtam || 8 || saptatyakhyam prakaranam.....10) The analysis of this passage gives the following result: the transmission of the system is marked by four stages. The Maharsi (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 rsi). The Muni (this is the title usually given to Pancasikha) 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 Yuktidiipika) into an extensive work by discussions on the tenets of the opponents. This work has again been abridged by Isvarakrsna into his Samkhyakarika by leaving out polemics and similes 11). As there is a clear statement that the Karika 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 (Pancasikha). So much for the testimony of the old commentaries. 10) Yuktidipika, p. 1, 6-18. 11) Samkhyakarika Ka. 72: saptatyam kila ye'rthaste'rthah krtsnasya sastitantrasya akhyayikavirahitah paravadavivar jitascapi. 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 Acaryas 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 Pancasikha lies to Asuri and Kapila, and must content ourselves with this general statement. A further account on Pancabikha is presented by the Mahabharatam, 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 Sankhya (Samkhyamukhah) 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 Pancasikha belongs to the old Parasara *) Here we base ourselves on the material gathered by V.M. Bedekar, in: Studies in Samkhya: The Teachings of Pancasikha in the Mahabharata. We are also indebted to P. Chakravarti for his indications: op. cit. p. 80 and 113 f. 13) Mahabharatam XII, 325, 27. We give the references according to Paul Deussen: Vier philosophische Texte des Mahabharatam, Leipzig 1906. ") Mahabharatam XII, 218, 6 (7886) ff. In this connection a feature of the Samkhya that is very predominant in the epic and still re-echoes in the introduction of the Samkhyakarika may be pointed out, namely Samkhya as a doctrine of salvation, as moksasostram. The primary and fundamental problem of the epic texts is salvation. nanu tvaya moksah krtsnah pancasikhacchrutah / sopayah sopanisadah sopasanguh saniscayah // Mahabharatam XII, 165) Strangely enough the only quotation which perhaps is taken from the work of Pancasikha pancavinsatitattvajna is introduced in Paramartha's commentary by the words: voici ce qui est dit dans le moksa" (op. cit. p. 982). We find the term moksasastram used for the Samkhya system also in the writings of Vijnanabhiksu (Samkhyapravacanabhasyam p. 7). If we consider at the same time that especially during this period the main authorities for argumentation were chosen from the Puranas and the epic (Moksadharma) 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: jaigisavyo'pi janakah vrddhascaiva parasarah | imam panthanamasadya mukta hyanye ca moksinah ||16) We find here the same expression as in the Mahabharatam. Both these passages deal with an old Parasara who is a follower of the Samkhya; in both cases mention is made of a Janaka standing by his side. Moreover the Yuktidipika mentions a Janaka among Pancasikha's pupils 17). Thus we can consider it as possible that Asvaghosa here refers to Pancasikha and this could be a terminus ad quem. Even if we do not subscribe to this view the PancasikhaJanaka episode gives us an approximate clue to the historical position of Pancasika. Pancasikha 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 Brhadaranyaka 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, Pancasikha'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: Pancasikha 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 Pancasikha (or of a Samkhya-teacher closely related to Pancasikha) and of Janaka, the king of Videha, might have been the reason for the origin of the identification of the two pairs, Pancasikha-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 Samkhyakarika quotes a verse that is recited during the Rsitarpana ceremony: Sanakasca Sanandanasca trtiyasca sanatanah | Asurih Kapilascaiva vodhuh pancasikhastatha || ityete brahmanah putrah sapta prokta maharsayah //19) This verse might be derived from the same source as Matsyapuranam 102, 18, if not directly originated from this latter passage: manusyamstar payedbhaktya brahmaputran rsimstatha | sanakasca sanandasca trtiyasca sanatanah || kapilascasuriscaiva vodhuh pancasikhastatha j sarve te trptimayantu maddattenambuna sada // 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 Tarpanavidhih of the Atharvavedaparisista: Yajnopavitam grivayam avalambya sanakadimanusyams tarpayati [] sanakas trpyatu // sanandanas trpyatu // sanatanas trpyatu || kapilas trpyatu vodhus trpyatu asuris trpyatu // pancasikhas trpyatu .. 21). Hence we are justified in concluding that "") Gaudapadabhasyam on Ka. 1. According to Garhe (op. cit. p. 64) this verse is recited daily during the Rsitarpana ceremony. Cf. Vayupurana 101, 337-338: tatra purvagatastesu kumara brahmanah sutah/ sanakasca sanandasca trtiyasca sanatanah // vodhusca kapilastesamasurisca mahayasah/ munih pancasikhascaiva ye canye'pyevamadayah /: Padmapurana VI, 257, 121-122: sandarsanaya yoginam sanakadimahatmanam / sanakasca sandanasca trtiyasca sanatanah // sanatkumaro jatasca vodhuh pancasikhastatha / saptaite brahmanah putra yoginah sumahaujasah// 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 Rsitarpana ceremony. Thus our conclusion from the epic is strengthened. The classical tradition of the Samkhya has placed Pancasikha deliberately on the same footing with Kapila and Asuri, 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: Pancasikha was nothing more than a name to them. With the exception of two passages in the Yuktidipika 22) no mention whatever is made in any Samkhya 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 Pancasikha 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 Samkhya 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 Yoyabhasyam which are. clearly ascribed to Pancasikha by Vacaspatimisra? We shall first examine the value of the historical testimony given by Vacaspatimisra concerning Pancasikha. If we fix ca. 500 A. D. for the Yogabhasyam, Vacaspati appears at least 300 years later, and the interval between Vacaspati and Pancasikha is several centuries more. So the testimony of Vacaspati 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 Yuktidipika preserves one of these fragments and mentions its author, we find that Vacaspati's attribution is not correct. If Vacaspati ascribes the quotation: ekam eva darsanam ) Yuktidipika, p. 31, 24: iha bhavatam pancasikhanam pancavimsatitattvani and p. 61, 1: asmatpakse'pi turhi bhagavatpancusikhadinam pratyaksatvat sutkaryamabhyupagantavyam. 80

Page #12
khyatireva darsanam 3) to Pancasikha, the Yuktidipika mentions it as taken from the Sastram 24), a work which is cited in several places in the same text. Further the quotation rupatisaya ..... pravartante in the Yogabhasyam is also attributed to Pancasikha. by Vacaspati 25), whereas the Yuktidipika 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 Yogabhasyam have already been verified as being Vrsagana's. The fragment in the Yogabhasyam on III, 53: murtivyavadhi jatibhedabhavannasti mulaprthaktvam is attributed to Vrsagana by the Bhasyam itself. The fragment in the Yogabhasyam on III, 13 is the above-discussed, which is mentioned once more in the Bhasyam on II, 15, and is verified as Vrsagama's by the Yuktidipika. The fragment in the Bhasyam on IV, 13: gunuinam paramam rupam ..... sutucchakam is attributed to Vrsagana by Vacaspati, which he (Vacaspati) himself states in another place to be a doctrine of the Sastitantram 27). Finally the fragment in the Yoyabhasyam on III, 14: jalabhumyoh ..... abhivyaktir is ascertained as Vrsagana's through Simhasuri's com. mentary on the Nayacakram 28). From what we have seen we can conclude that Vrsagana is one of the chief authorities for the Yogabhasyam on the speculative problems of the Samkhya metaphysics. These findings are based on sources older than Vacaspati and are therefore historically more reliable. It is quite the opposite with regard to the Pancasikha-fragments which are nothing but anonymous quotations attributed to Pancasikha by Vacaspati alone several hundred years later and so cannot be accepted as really such. 3) Tattvavaisaradi on Y.S. I, 1. **) Yuktidipika, p. 41, 25 f. 5) Tattvavaisaradi on Y.S. III, 13. 20) Yuklidipika, p. 72, 5f.: tatha ca bhagavan varsaganyah pathati rupatisaya rrtlyatisayasca viruddhyante, samanyani tvatisayaih saha vartante. 9) Tattvavaisaradi on Y. S. IV, 13. Cf. Bhamati on Br. S. II, 1, 3: ata eva yoga. sastram vyut padayita aha sma bhagavan varsaganyah. 8) Dvadasaranayacakram, p. 320, 2--4. Cf. Yuktidipika, p. 81, 21 f. 81

Page #13
But how could it happen that a scholar of Vacaspatimisra's standing attributed anonymous quotations to Pancasikha? 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 Pancasikha was the author of the Sastitantram. The commentary translated by Paramartha into Chinese ca. 550 A. D. speaks of a work of Pancasikha 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 Sastitantram 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 Isvarakrsna's remark tena bahudha krtam tantram, as he understood it to mean that Pancasikha had written a large work. Besides, he must have known Pancasikha 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 Sastitantram could denote a definite work as well as the Samkhya system of the classical period itself the relationship between Pancasikha and Sastitantram becomes easily understandable. In other words, Paramartha's informant transferred the idea he had about the classical Samkhya system, namely the Sastitantram, to Pancasikha'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 Pancasikha also the special work called Sastitantram. This attribution became all the more possible since the knowledge about its real author was steadily fading while the name of Pancasikha 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 Samkhyakarika, the Jayamangala, the author of the Sastitantram is in fact identified with Pancasikha 31). Obviously that commentary 2) Paramartha's commentary: loc. cit. p. 1059. 3) Loc. cit. p. 1061. "Jayamangala on Ka. 70: tena iti / pancasikhena munina bahudha krtam luntram/sastitantrakhyam sastikhandam krtam iti. 82

Page #14
till knows something from the Sastitantram, but no more from the original as is clear from the fact that, while enumerating the ten Mulikarthas, a Samgrahakara is mentioned as the source of information, .and that the classification of the inference deviates from the original form in the Sastitantram. The above-mentioned identification has been possible because of this fact. As has already been correctly pointed out by Hara Datta Sarma 32), Vacaspati refers very probably to an opinion of the Jayamangala in his Tattvakaumudi on Ka. 51, and so presupposes the former. Therefore he might really have been of the opinion that the Sastitantram and the tradition of the school connected with it originated from Pancasikha. If we are in a position to show now that the fragments in the Yogabhasyam attributed to Pancasikha by Vacaspati 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 Sastitantram was Vrsagana's work. This proof holds good for part of the fragments. First we shall consider the person of Vrsagana. Tradition regarding him begins with Vasubandhu who makes mention of the followers of Vrsagana. In Paramartha's ,,Life of Vasuhandhu" we meet with Vrsagana having a mythical form as the teacher of Vindhyavasin 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 Vijnaptimatratasiddhih that he was the head of a Samkhya schools), a fact which is known to us also from the Yuktidipika as Vrsagana's followers are often mentioned there. *** Haradatta Sarma: Jayamangal, and the other Commentaries on Samkhya 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 etait appele Fa-li-cha (varsa) ce qui signifie <> (varsaganya)." Cf, also Vasubandhu, Abhiharmakosah V, 63 f.: ,,Vous n'avez plus qu'a joindre l'ecole des Varsaganyas ..."

Page #15
This testimony of Paramartha is corroborated by other evidences. For instance, as we saw, Vrsagana is quoted by Vasubandhu in the Abhidharmakosa 36), Dignaga attacks his teachings while he deals with the Samkhya 37); Uddyotakara refutes his definition of perception 38), and Simhasuri also commenting on the Dvadasaranayacakram considers Vrsagana 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 Sankhya from the fourth century upto the time when the Sankhyakarika in its easily understandable form displaced the somewhat difficult and large work of Vrsagana, the only one to be dealt with by the opponents. From Simhasuri's commentary on Mallavadi's * Dvadasaranaya. 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 Vrsagana's theory of cognition by means of these fragments and others goes to E. Frauwallner, thanks to whose work we car prove Vrsagana's influence on the later period' - as for instance, on the Vsttikara in Sabara's Bhasyam +1), on Candramati *9) and, as much as we can see from the fragments, on the Samkhyakarika itself which, while proving the existence of the primal matter; enumerates the five proofs of Vrsagana -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) Nyayavarttikam, p. 43, 10 (K. S. S. No. 33); cf. Tatparyatika, p. 155, 26 (K. S. S. No. 24) and Yuktidipika, p. 4, 10 and p. 39, 14. 39) For some material on this point see E. Frauwallner: Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhya-Systems (Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sud- und Ost. asiens, Bd. II, Wien 1958), p. 123-126. 40) Ibidem. 4) Cf. E. Frauwallner: Candramati und sein Dasapadarthasastram (Studia Indologica, Festschrift fur Willibald Kirfel zur Vollendung seines 70. Lebensjahres. Bonn 1955), p. 78. **) E. Frauwallner: Candramati loc. cit. p. 79 f. 5) Samkhyakarika Ka. 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 Pancasikha. 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 Pancasikha 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 Sastitantram is already decided. But let us first examine the expression,,Sastitantram". Sastitantram means a system of sixty concepts". This expression occurs in the Samkhyakarika **), its commentaries and some passages of the Jainas ). This means that this expression is attested **) Samkhyakarika Ka. 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 kapilasastram, tatra visaradah panditah; Bhaskara says in his Brahmasutrabhasyam on Br. S. II, 1, 1: yadi brahmaivopadana karanam nimittakaranam ca tatah kapilamaharsipranitasastitantrakhyasmrter anavakaso nirvisayatvam... 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 Sastitantram of the Pancaratra work. Only in the first case is the name Sastitantram 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 Samkhya 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 Samkhya system, namely, Vrsagana's work, which is attested as varsaganyatantram +6). This must be identical with the Sastitantram 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 Samkhya 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 Ahirbudhnyasamhita, 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 Sastitantram does not seem to us to mean a definite work, but only one of those various forms of Samkhya philosophy which were closely connected with the Purana literature, since there is a plurality of such systems expressly mentioned: Sastitantranyathaikaikam esim nanavidham mune (Ahirbudhnyasamhita XII, 30). Thus the Sastitantram of the Samhita has nothing to do with the Sastitantram, 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) Dvadasaranayacakram, p. 324, 11. Besides this general consideration, we can also bring forward a textual argument for the identification of Varsaganyatantram with the Sastitantram. Thus we find that the five proofs for the existence of primal matter given by Simhasuri in his commentary on Dvadasaranayacakram as Vrsagana's are identical with those found in the Samkhyakarika, Ka. 15. As Isvarakrsna himself states that he gave an exact summary of the Sastitantram and since we do not find any evidence for the existence of an important work other than the Varsaganyatantram, we can conclude that Isvarakrsna reproduces in Karika 15 the five proofs from Vrsagana, and consequently the Varsaganyatanirani is identical with the Sastitantram. 86

Page #18
a thing like this. Besides the epic tradition of the Moksadharma and the Puranas in which Pancasikha is mentioned as the chief Samkhya 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 Sankhyasutras, the main text of the Samkhya 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 Tattvayatharthyadipanam of Bhavaganesa are all to be found in the Tattvasamasasutravrttih"). According to Garbe this work was attributed to Pancasikha in all the manuscripts known to him . As Bhavaganesa himself states in the introduction to his work: samisasutrunyolambya vyakhyam pancasikhasya ca i bhavaganesah kurute tattvayatharthyadipanam // 32) . F. Hall and later more decidedly R. Garbe had concluded that the fragments in question have been ascribed by mistake to Pancasikha hy Bhavaganesa, for he had thought that the Tattvasamasasutravittih was a work of Pancasikha. Although Garbe was right in saying that the attribution of these fragments by Bhavaganesa to Pancasikha was wrong, yet his argument is not fully convincing. First of all Garbe considered, upon the authority of Vacaspati, the fragments in the Yogabhasyam as +7) Samkhyasutras V, 32 ff. and VI, 68. *) R. Garbe: Samkhya-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 Bhavaganesa's work. "") Samkhya-Sara, a Treatise of Samkhya Philosophy by Vijnanabhiksu, ed. hy F. Hall, Calcutta 1862, p. 23 f. ) Tattvasamasasutravrttih (Samkhyasamgraha, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series. No. 286, Benares 1920, p. 117-140). This work is identical with the work edited by Ballantyne under the title ,,Kramadipika: A Lecture on the Samkhya Philo. sophy, embracing the text of the Tattvasamasa", printed for the use of the Benares College, Mirzarpore 1850. 5) loc. cit. 2) Bhavaganesa Diksita: Tattvayatharthyadipanam (Samkhyasamgraha, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series No. 246, Benares 1918), p. 51.

Page #19
genuine fragments of Pancasikha. Therefore he was of the opinion that Pancasikha'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 Bhavaganesa depended on the Tattvasamasasutravrttih to a greater extent than Garbe supposed it to be 53). But now the question arises why Bhavaganesa did not cite also the much longer quotations from the Vrttih under the name of Pancasikha. Why does he connect with this name only passages that are given in the Vsttih itself as quotations? 54) On the basis of Garbe's argument one would expect that the quotations appearing as Pancasikha-fragments in the Tattvayatharthyadipanam should not be considered by Bhavaganesa as Pancasikha's, and that those cited anonymously should appear as Pancasikha's. Further it is hard to believe that Bhavaganesa considered the Tattvasamasasutravrttih as a work of Pancasikha, he (Pancasikha) himself being quoted there 55). Bhavaganesa 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 Bhavaganesa seems to be only partially correct. 3. Even if we accept this explanation there are still three passages of Pancasikha-fragments left unexplained: a) The quotation as given by Vijnanabhiksu in his Bhasyam on 58) Bhavaganesa makes excerpts from the Tattvasamasasutravrttih word for word on pp. 61, 63, 71 f., 74, 75, 80, 81 without, however, mentioning the source. 5) The fragment pancavimsatitattvajna etc. is found in the writings of Paramartha on Ka. 2 and in those of other authors. The fragment adau 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 tattvani yo vedayati etc. is cited as well by the Samkhyatattvavivecanam (Samkhyasamgraha, p. 16) and Samkhyasutravivaranam (Samkhyasamgraha, p. 108), though in a slightly modi. fied form. 5) Tattvasamasasutravrttih, p. 125. 58) Tattvayatharthyadipanam, p. 61. 88

Page #20
S. S. I, 127 differs so much from the text of the Tattvasamasasutravrttih that, in order to derive it from the Vrttih, one must consider it as a paraphrase. b) The Pancasikha 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 Pancasikha. c) The Pancasikha-fragment in S. S. VI, 68, likewise, is not to be found in the Tattvasamasasutravrttih. This shows that the name of a Pancasikha appeared in the Samkhya Renaissance even independently of the Tattvasamasasutravrttih, allegedly attributed to Pancasikha. Yet we shall consider more closely the Pancasikha-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 vyaptih. With the words adheyasaktiyoga iti Pancasikhah, the definition of vyapti of a Pancasikha is given. The problem of vyaptih 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 Samkhyasutras, 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 vyaptih such as we find it in Pancasikha's fragment cannot be historically fitted into the period of the old Pancasikha. Thus we can conclude that the teacher who defined vyaptih as adheyasaktiyogah is to be dated later than Vrsagana and cannot possibly be identified with the old Pancasikha. 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 Tattvasamasasutras and the Samkhyasutras. 57) E. Frauwallner: Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhyasystems, WZKSO Bd. II, p. 123. Cf. Jayamangala, pp. 8, 9-15 and Nyayavarttikatatparyatika, 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 Sastitantram, and we can thus sum up the results of our research: 1. All the traditions point to Pancasikha' as a Samkhya authority of the early period of the system. 2. During the classical period of the system in which we have to place the Sastitantram hardly anything more than the name of Pancasikha is known whereas Vrsagana 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 Sastitantram. 3. The authority of Vacaspati concerning the attribution of the anonymous quotations in the Yogabhasyam to Pancasikha is entirely insufficient. On the contrary, we can show in four cases that Vrsagana is the Samkhya-authority for the Bhasyakara. 4. Due to the fading knowledge about Vrsagana during the post. classical period the knowledge about Pancasikha as a predominant Samkhya-teacher, kept alive in the epic and the Puranas, comes to the foreground, until at last, supported by the incorrect interpretation of Isvaraklsna's testimony, Pancasikha takes Vrsagana's. place as the author of the Sastitantram. The mistake of Vacaspati is to be attributed to this circumstance. 5. At the time of the Sankhya Renaissance the epic portrait of Pancasikha 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 vyaptih 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 Samkhya: Pancasikha and Caraka (ABORI, vol. 38. pp. 140-147), Poona 1958. V.M. Bedekar: Studies in Samkhya: The Teachings of Pancasikha in the Maha bharata (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