Page #1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________ Madhava, An Early Unfaithful Exponent of the Sankhya By V. RAGHAVAN, Madras. Early Sankya was characterised by a large variety of doctrines, Paramartha mentioning no less than eighteen schools of Sankhya. 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 Sankhya authorities, Kapila, Asuri, Pancas kha, Vi rsaganya, Jaigisavya and Vindhyavasin, as also the views in the Yoga-Sutras, Asvaghosa, 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 Karikas of Isvaraklsna 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 Vedanta. 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 Sankhya. Urve ka makes an interesting reference to him in his commentary on the Slokavarttika, from which it appears that Madhava is presupposed by Kumarila himself. The reference cccurs under the Codana 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 Umveka, the subsection beginnig from verse 231 under the Codana Sutra is directed against the Sarkhya who does not accept the scriptural authority and opposes Vedic sacrifices as being on a par with any mundane act of injury (himsa). 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, Kumarila 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 hisa 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, Unveka introduces this view as that of a leader of Sankhya thought (Sankhya-nayaka), by name Madhava. sAMkhyanAyakamAdhavastvAha-vihAyAnumAnAdIn vidhipratiSadhanibandhanatvameva dharmAdharmayoravalambya agnISomIyAdijvadharmatAmAha kvacaditi zlokatrayaNa x x x hiMsA nAma tAvadekA vyaktiratrailokya'pi, tasmAcca kvacilloke brahmahatyAdiSu "na hiMsyAsarvANi bhUtAni" iti pratiSedhAdaniSTasAdhanatvazaktiravagamitA; na ca pratihatA idAnIm ; vidheyeSvagnISomIyAdiSu hiMsAyA avizaSAnnApagacchati x x x ataH sarvazAstrAnusArAdeva hiMsAdInAmadharmatvaM kalpyate na punaranumAnata iti sthitamagnISomIyAdiSvadharmatvam / . There are two references to this Madhava in Jinendrabuddhi's gloss Visalamalavati on the Pramanasamuccaya of Dinnaga (ch. 1)' from which it is seen that this Sankhya writer was earlier than Dinnaga himself who presupposes him. Here again, Madhava is seen to hold a peculiar view. From verse 28 onwards, Dinnaga proceeds to criticise the Sankhya conception of pratyaksa 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, Madhava held that the nature of sukha etc. differed in every case : kapilAdayo manyante sukhAdInAM svarUpa sarvatra ekameva / mAdhavastu tAni sarvatra bhidyanta iti / Jinendrabuddhi says again under verse 34 : mAdhavapakSAdasya nyUnadoSatvAdityevamuktamiti na dossH| A third text where we have a very significant reference to Madhava is Karnakagomin's gloss on Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika;" from Karnakagomin 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 Sankhya thought, Sankhya-nayaka', but a Sankhya-nasaka, 'a destroyer of Sankhya.' 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 (pramana', 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 : __ api ca vedastadvayAkhyAnaM vA puruSeNa puruSAyopadizyamAnamanaSTasampradAyamevAnuvartata ityatrApi samayaH sa(za?)raNam / AgamabhraMzakAriNAmAhopuruSikayA taddarzanavidveSeNa vA tatpratipannakhalIkaraNAya dhUtavyasanena anyato vA kutazcit kAraNAd anyathAracanAsambhavAt / When explaining the above, Karnakagomin says that for misrepresentation, there is the example of Madhava 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 samarthayate / AgamabhraMzakAriNAM puMsAmanyathA / pUrvaracanAvaiparItyena racanAdarzanAditi sambandhaH / anyathA racanAyAM kAraNamAha / prAhopuruSikayetyAdi / AhopuruSikayetyahamAnitvena / yathA sAMkhyanAzakamAdhavena sAMkhyasiddhAntasyAnyathA racanaM kRtam / tadarzanavidveSeNa vAnyathA racanA 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.