Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
Madhava, An Early Unfaithful Exponent
of the Sankhya
By
V. RAGHAVAN, Madras. Early Sänkya was characterised by a large variety of doctrines, Paramārtha mentioning no less than eighteen schools of Sānkhya. Isvarakrspa's work not only swallowed all the earlier literature but also codified the systemi into some homogeneity. The glimpses that we have of the early Sāňkhya authorities, Kapila, Āsuri, Pancaś kha, Vi rşaganya, Jaigişavya and Vindhyavāsin, as also the views in the Yoga-Sutras, Ašvaghoşa, Caraka and the Great Epic, show a considerable body of divergent views. While, on one side, following a common law in the history of Sanskrit literature, the compendious Kārikās of Iśvarakļşņa threw into oblivion all the earlier literature, the system itself was soon absorbed and rendered superfluous by both the theistically oriented epic version and the Vedānta. The reconstruction of the early history of Sankhya and the views of its different exponents becomes thus a very interesting-wcrk. Madhava, of whose contribution and its peculiar nature w shall speak here, is one of the little known celebrities of this early history of Sānkhya.
Urve ka makes an interesting reference to him in his commentary on the Slokavārttika, from which it appears that Madhava is presupposed by Kumārila himself. The reference cccurs under the Codanā Stitra during the course of the discussion that he scriptural injunction or interdiction alone is authority for determining dharma and adharma and not any inference, such as the one based on the apparent good or injury relating from an act. According to Uṁveka, the subsection beginnig from verse 231 under the Codana Sutra is directed against the Sārkhya who does not accept the scriptural authority and opposes Vedic sacrifices as being on a par with any mundane act of injury (himsā). After showing that neither benefit to another nor injury to him is criterion for dharma or adharma, but the injunction or interdiction of the Veda alone is, Kumārila considers the view of a clever opponent who said that it was not on the basis of any inference that he considered the Vedic sacrifice as adharma, that he considered he Vedic vidhi-nisedha as the competent authority in this respect and that as the Veda prohibited hissii and it could not draw a line between one kind of hisā and another or remove
1. See E. H. Johnston: Early Sankhya, London. 2. Madras University Sanskrit Series, p. 112
Page #2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________
V. RAGHAVAN
the injurious nature in one case by its vidhi, the Vedic sacrifice too should be considered to be adharma. Now, Uñveka introduces this view as that of a leader of Sankhya thought (Sankhya-nayaka), by name Madhava.
सांख्यनायकमाधवस्त्वाह-विहायानुमानादीन् विधिप्रतिषधनिबन्धनत्वमेव धर्माधर्मयोरवलम्ब्य अग्नीषोमीयादिज्वधर्मतामाह क्वचदिति श्लोकत्रयण x x x हिंसा नाम तावदेका व्यक्तिरत्रैलोक्यऽपि, तस्माच्च क्वचिल्लोके ब्रह्महत्यादिषु "न हिंस्यासर्वाणि भूतानि" इति प्रतिषेधादनिष्टसाधनत्वशक्तिरवगमिता; न च प्रतिहता इदानीम् ; विधेयेष्वग्नीषोमीयादिषु हिंसाया अविशषान्नापगच्छति x x x अतः सर्वशास्त्रानुसारादेव हिंसादीनामधर्मत्वं कल्प्यते न पुनरनुमानत इति स्थितमग्नीषोमीयादिष्वधर्मत्वम् । .
There are two references to this Mādhava in Jinendrabuddhi's gloss Viśālāmalavati on the Pramāṇasamuccaya of Dinnāga (ch. 1)' from which it is seen that this Sāňkhya writer was earlier than Dinnāga himself who presupposes him. Here again, Madhava is seen to hold a peculiar view. From verse 28 onwards, Dinnāga proceeds to criticise the Sankhya conception of pratyakşa or sensory perception and the nature of sense and its obj:ct; in this context, the gloss of Jinendrabuddhi (on verse 31) says that, as against Kapila, Mādhava held that the nature of sukha etc. differed in every case : कपिलादयो मन्यन्ते सुखादीनां स्वरूप सर्वत्र एकमेव । माधवस्तु तानि सर्वत्र भिद्यन्त इति । Jinendrabuddhi says again under verse 34 : माधवपक्षादस्य न्यूनदोषत्वादित्येवमुक्तमिति न दोषः।
A third text where we have a very significant reference to Madhava is Karņakagomin's gloss on Dharmakirti's Pramāņavārttika;" from Karņakagomin we learn that the reading in Umveka's gloss on Kumarila, Sankhya-nayaka . is really corrupt and that Madhava was really not a 'leader of Sānkhya thought, Sāňkhya-nāyaka', but a Sānkhya-nāšaka, 'a destroyer of Sānkhya.' During his examination of the conception of verbal testimony such as of the Veda and of the conception of an 'apta', the trustworthy person whose word (sabda) is an authority (pramāna', Dharmakirti says that the view that the Veda or its interpretation has had the transmission from mouth to mouth in an unbroken manner rests solely on the conventional and customary belief within a group of persons, and it is quite possible that corrupters, out of selfimportance, inner dislike or the vile satisfaction of vandalism, had misrepresented the tradition :
__ अपि च वेदस्तद्वयाख्यानं वा पुरुषेण पुरुषायोपदिश्यमानमनष्टसम्प्रदायमेवानुवर्तत इत्यत्रापि समयः स(श?)रणम् । आगमभ्रंशकारिणामाहोपुरुषिकया तद्दर्शनविद्वेषेण वा तत्प्रतिपन्नखलीकरणाय धूतव्यसनेन अन्यतो वा कुतश्चित् कारणाद् अन्यथारचनासम्भवात् । When explaining the above, Karņakagomin says that for misrepresentation, there is the example of Mādhava who ruined the Sankhya by expounding it in
3. Edn. H. R. R. Iyengar, Mysore, pp. 77, 80. 4. BORS edn. by Rahual Sankrityayana, p. 59.
Page #3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ MADHAVA, AN EARLY UNFAITHFULL EXPONENT OF THE SANKHYA 3 an unfaithful manner : 317A silfurfhINAI Aingialasen TAFITATHAI समर्थयते / आगमभ्रंशकारिणां पुंसामन्यथा / पूर्वरचनावैपरीत्येन रचनादर्शनादिति सम्बन्धः / अन्यथा रचनायां कारणमाह / प्राहोपुरुषिकयेत्यादि / आहोपुरुषिकयेत्यहमानित्वेन / यथा सांख्यनाशकमाधवेन सांख्यसिद्धान्तस्यान्यथा रचनं कृतम् / तदर्शनविद्वेषेण वान्यथा रचना FFHTIG I 'Sankhya-nasaka' is thus a badge of notriety gained by Madhava * for the salya-sarathya he did for the Sankhya system. Corroboration of the existence of an early Sankhya writer of this name comes from Hieun-Tsiang who mentions in his Travels that in Magadha was a monastery dedicated to the Buddhist teacher Gunamati, "who here vanquished in discussion the great Sankhya Doctor Madhava". It is significant to note in this connection that GunamatiR wrote what is called the Laksananusastra which Paramartha rendered into the Chinese about 560 A, D., a text which shows "an intimate acquaintance with the Sankhya teachings". 5. T. Watters : On Yuan Chevang's Travels in India, London, Vol. II, pp. 108-9. 6. "One Sthiramati was a pupil of Guramati and lived before 425 A. D." Winternita: History of Indian Literature, Calcutta University, Vol. II, p. 362, fn. 3.