On Origins Of Guna Theory Struggling For A New Approach Wrestling With Frauwallner

Author(s): Albrecht Wezler
Publisher: Albrecht Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269423/1

Page #1

ON THE ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY. STRUGGLING FOR A NEW APPROACH (1):
WRESTLING WITH FRAUWALLNER
Albrecht Wezler, Hambourg
The "prehistory", "early history" or "formation" of Sāmkhya is a highly controversial topic. When going through the works of earlier scholars who have dealt with it, one cannot but gather the impression that it is in fact a veritable mine-field: it is hence absolutely necessary to move with utter care. Several lessons, in my view, have to be learned first, viz. the following ones:
1. a The term 'system' should be avoided, i.e. not applied to any of the pre-Kärikä stages of Sāmkhya, unless they can be shown to have indeed been a whole organized somehow systematically, or it should at least be indicated that the term is used in a figurative sense only;
1. b The above holds good for the term 'school', too;
2. It is advisable to use neutral terms instead, such as 'aggregate of (philosophical) thoughts or doctrines', even though this may sound a bit long-winded;
3. Even if we grant VAN BUITENEN'S (1956, 1957a and b) speculative reconstruction of the history of early Samkhya a certain plausibility, and even if we basically agree with his appeal (1957b: 102) "to allow for the greatest diversity, rather than the greatest uniformity of doctrine", it has to be emphasized that we cannot avoid addressing the questions as to a) which of the pre-Kärikä stages attested in our sources should be regarded as the earliest form or forms of Samkhya - regardless whether the expression Samkhya was used with reference to it, no matter what the meaning of samkhya is in its first occurrences - and b) whether this form, or these forms, should also be considered as the very beginning of Samkhya as such and hence c) which doctrines should be regarded as constituting Samkhya in its beginning, as being typical for it.

Page #2

538
ALBRECHT WEZLER
ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY
539
4. The difference between and the significance assigned to agreement of terms, on the one hand, and similarity of doctrines, on the other, in the reconstruction of the history of Samkhya have to be noted and to be examined as to their relative, and absolute, historical value - as do the theoretical premises they involve respectively, of course, in the situation as it is, i.e. in the absence of explicit references, allusions, or reliable historical reports.
As can be seen, a connection, of course, a historical one, is asserted here on the basis of an agreement of expressions from two different strata of the textual tradition of Samkhya, in spite of a certain semantic, or terminological, development which is admitted, but not elaborated by FRAUWALLNER, yet in combination with the indeed noteworthy triplicity common to both.'
When FRAUWALLNER, a little later, comes to speak of the "introduction of the doctrine of evolution", "the basic transformation which made the Samkhya system proper grow out of the old doctrine" of the Moksadharma,' his reconstruction of this period in the history of Samkhya philosophy includes the following passage: "Pancasikha" - whom FRAUWALLNER for the sake of simplicity, designates as "the man who carried out this recasting of Samkhya philosophy", a convention which I myself want to follow here - "did not content himself with teaching the emerging of the whole world from one primary matter, but he also put to himself the question of how it might be possible that the whole manifoldness of the phenomenal world springs from this one primary matter". And he came to the following solution:
This latter point is conveniently illustrated by FRAUWALLNER's (1953) ideas, both thoughtful and provoking, about the origin of the evolutiontheory, in effect also the guna-theory. In the framework of his exposition of what he calls the basic form of Sāmkhya as found in the epic" - an exposition which can be regarded as a summary, but equally also as the summa of his earlier studies on the Moksadharma (1925a, b and 1926) - he states, among other things, when discussing the "connections" ("Zusammenhänge") between the Samkhya doctrine preserved in three versions in this parvan and the system of classical Samkhya": "But above all, there are undeniable connections between the doctrine of the three states of cognition (buddhih), as contained in our text, and one of the most characteristic doctrines of the Samkhya-system, namely, the doctrine of the three qualities (gunah) of primary matter (prakrtih). It is true, pleasure, pain and dullness of our text belong as qualities only to cognition, it is true that they are primarily states (bhāvāh) of the cognition here, and that the expression quality' (gunah) is used for them only after the description of their different qualities has been given.' But the same peculiar designations of these states of cognition and of the qualities of primary matter as goodness (sarvam), passion (rajah) and darkness (tamah), and the outstanding role they play in the theory of liberation, are too conspicuous for a connection to be disputed."
In the age of the Upanişads an attempt was made in the instruction of Svetaketu to derive the manifoldness of things from the most simple conditions by assuming three ur-elements through the uniting of which all things arise. And as Samkhya onginated in Brahmanical circles in which the thoughts of the Upanisadic times were still in force, this doctrine was known to Pancasikha, too, and inspired him to his solution to the question posed. In the instruction of Svetaketu it had been said that all things are made up of the three ur-elements, and that the differences between things depend on how these elements are mixed with one another and which of them preponderales. ParcaSikha now assumed that primary matter possesses three
This phrase was completely misunderstood by BEDEKAR (1973: 234 f.). As his translation is in general not faithful to the orginal I always give my own English rendering here. The German original reads as follows: "vor allem aber bestehen unleugbare Beziehungen zwischen der Lehre von den drei Zuständen des Erkennen, wie sie unser Text enthält, und einer der charakteristischesten Lehren des Sāmkhya-Systems, nämlich der Lehre von den drei Eigenschaften (gunah) der Umalene (prakrti). Zwar gehören Lust, Leid und Dumpfheit in unserem Text als Eigenschaften nur dem Erkennen an, zwar heissen sie hier in erster Linie Zustände (bhavāh) des Erkennens
und erst nach der Schilderung ihrer verschiedenen Eigenschaften (gunah) wird dieser Ausdruck für sie selbst gebraucht. Aber die gleiche eigentümliche Benennung dieser Zustände des Erkennens und der Eigenschaften der Urmaterie als Güte (salivam). Leidenschaft (rajah) und Finsternis (tamah), und die hervorragende Rolle, die sie vor allem in der Erlösungslehre spielen, ist zu auffällig, als dass sich ein Zusammenhang in Abrede stellen liesse". (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 297 r.). CC. HARA 1974 and LIENHARD 1996 "Einführung der Evolutionslehre". "... kommen wir bereits zur grundlegenden Umgestaltung, welche aus der alten Lehre das eigentliche Sámkhya-System machte (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 299 f.). Le CHU 6.1. ff; FRAUWALLNER refers here (1953: 305) to "S. 886" of his Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, Bd. I
3 4
5

Page #3

540
ALBRECHT WEZLER
different qualities (gunah) which combine with each other in most different ways. Now this quality preponderates, now that. And the unending manifoldness of the mixture of these qualities renders possible the infinite variety of things which nevertheless arise out of the one primary matter.
Quite clearly this tentative reconstruction has little, if anything at all, to do with terms or other elements of linguistic expression, but is based on the internal, doctrinal similarity of two sets of ideas, and the derivability of one of them from the other in terms of a plausible, or at least understandable historical development of a particular strand of early Indian philosophy. FRAUWALLNER provides additional evidence: He adds the remark that "the influence of the prototype", i.e. "The instruction of Svetaketu", "finds particular expression in a detail", viz. the association of the three urelements, in the Upanisad, with specific colours, white, red, and black, which "are attributed to the qualities of primary matter in some layers of the Samkhya tradition.""
Indeed in both cases, namely the comparison of the Epic material with what FRAUWALLNER calls "classical Samkhya" and of the evolution-theory with ChU 6.1 ff., no one will doubt that the conclusion of a historical connection is in fact irresistible, and that the difference in nature of the evidence certain terms in the first case, and certain elements of doctrinal
6 "In der Zeit der Upanisaden war in der Belehrung Svetaketu's der Versuch gemacht worden, die Mannigfaltigkeit der Dinge aus einfachsten Bedingungen abzuleiten, indem man drei Urelemente annahm, durch deren Mischung alle Dinge entstehen. Und da das Samkhya in brahmanischen Kreisen entstand, in denen die Gedanken der Upanisaden-Zeit weiterlebten, war diese Lehre auch Pañcasikha vertraut und gab ihm die Anregung zu der Art, wie er die gestellte Frage zu lösen versuchte. In der Belehrung Svetaketu's hatte es geheissen, dass alle Dinge aus den drei Urelementen bestehen, und dass ihre verschiedenen Beschaffenheit davon abhängt, wie diese Elemente miteinander gemischt sind und welches von ihnen überwiegt. Pañcasikha nahm nun an, dass die Urmaterie drei verschiedene Eigenschaften (gunah) besitzt, welche sich in der verschiedensten Form miteinander verbinden. Bald überwiegt diese, bald jene Eigenschaft. Und die unendliche Mannigfaltigkeit der Mischung dieser Eigenschaften ermöglicht die unendliche Verschiedenheit der Dinge, die trotzdem alle aus der einen Urmaterie entspringen." (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 305 f.).
7 "Die Wirkung des Vorbildes ist hierbei deutlich. Und sie kommt noch in einer Einzelheit besonders zum Ausdruck. In der Belehrung Svetakotu's waren den drei Urelementen bestimmte Farben zugeschrieben worden, und zwar weiss, rot und schwarz. Und die gleichen Farben werden in manchen Schichten der Sämkhya. Überlieferung den Eigenschaften der Ummaterie beigelegt." (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 306).
ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY
similarity, in the second - does not affect the extraordinarily high degree of probability common to both assumptions. Nevertheless, the nature of both types of evidence calls for (further) methodological reflection, first of all in the sense of making explicit and hence conscious, and clearly discernible, the implicit, "natural" and at least partly tacit presuppositions made by a scholar of the eminent stature of FRAUWALLNER, especially since he, to whom we owe the first real history of Indian philosophy, emphatically insisted that we have to understand Indian philosophy in terms of its historical development.
8
541
As is well-known, the mere occurrence of a particular expression, evidently used as a technical term," is by itself not sufficient proof for assuming a historical connection. The meaning of the term is of equal importance. I tell my students that it is necessary, when examining philosophical, nay, scientific texts in Sanskrit not only to follow one of the paribhāṣäs of the Päninian tradition, i.e. to distinguish between the laukika and sastriya lexical meanings of a word, but equally to reckon with the possibility that an author may use terms of other schools of thought, of strands of tradition other than his own, and that it is important to be able to identify them." But with regard to this latter possibility, we have to keep apart two entirely different things: The use of alien terms by an author in the context of a critical discussion and refutation of the opinion of an opponent and the adoption of such terms by an author in developing his own philosophical ideas. It is hence advisable, at least at this stage for our
8 It is, it seems, necessary to explicitly state that I fully agree with FRAUWALLNER as regards the historical approach in the study not only of Indian philosophy but also of Indian culture in general, and that in my view the allegedly modern "method" of ignoring it à la GRIFFITHS is a clear step backwards.
9
In my view (philosophical) terms are not only expressions which happen to have been defined in one text or the other; that is to say, I disagree with OBERHAMMER 1991 as regards the conceptual basis of his dictionary.
10 Viz. no. 9 in Nägojibhatta's Paribhäṣendusekhara: ubhayagatir iha bhavati.
11 To give just one example: OBERHAMMER 1987 fails to recognize in dealing with Nyayabhasya on NS 4.2.9 that asubhasamjñā is a Buddhist term, meaning "idea of [things as] impure", that strisanjña cannot hence but mean "idea of a woman" and that nimitta, "characteristics (that are apprehended and become part if an idea/notion]", and anuvyanjana, "secondary characteristics", are of Buddhist origin, too, i.e. that what we have to do with in this passage is the strand of ascetic, monastic, in any case celibate disgust for women. On this strand of the Indian tradition see now Renate SYED 1998. Mention should also be made of Gregory M. BAILEY 1996. Cf. also SLAJE 1995a, b.

Page #4

542
ALBRECHT WEZLER
ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY
na sukhena na duhkhena kadácid api vartate! evam naranam manasi trisu bhāvesv avasthita (scil. buddhih) // 22
studies, to distinguish, on the one hand, between the period of the formation of the terminology of an aggregate of philosophical thoughts, including the first tentative steps, and, on the other, the period of terminologies already formed and fixed to a certain degree. The notion 'formative period' implies that the formation of a term, the relation between its technical meaning and the meaning, or one of the meanings, it has in everyday language, should be explained, i.e. its coinage should be made intelligible. Or, turned the other way round, we could say: If an historical theory of the type of FRAUWALLNER's about the connections" between the Epic passages at issue here and classical Sämkhya" is also able to explain the formation of certain terms, this certainly adds to its verisimilitude, i.e. cannot but be regarded as strongly recommending its correctness.
Now, as for saltva, rajas and tamas, it is not only, as already stated earlier, their triplicity, which arrests attention, but equally also their oddness within the framework of "classical Sämkhya". And what FRAUWALLNER most probably wants to intimate, although he significantly does not state this explicitly, is that the use of these terms in "classical Samkhya" becomes understandable if it is assumed that they were taken over by Pancasikha, and that their use in the Moksadharma leads us back to their formation in that they denote there, and originally, qualities of cognition (buddhi), viz. "goodness, passion and dullness". Now this is precisely the point where I start feeling uncomfortable and begin to have doubts about the plausibility of FRAUWALLNER's theory. The reason is not so much the comparative darkness in which the early semantic development of these expressions, or their derivational base (sat), is still veiled, but rather the fact that even in the context of the epic passage they remain odd, though admittedly less odd than they appear in "classical Samkhya". And it is not so much due to the fact that the author of MBh. (Poona) 12.187 thought it necessary to explain these terms - because this is done in a series of verses (187.18 fr.) in which the function of the sense organs, etc., are described - but rather due to the way in which this is done, viz. as follows:
How is "pleasure" related to "goodness", and why is it not also a "passion" just like "sorrow/grieving", etc.? To be untouched by feelings of happiness and its opposite is not automatically tantamount to "dullness". This could rather pass for a good description of what is called upeksă in later Indian philosophy - while the last two padas of verse 12 remind one of the notions of upadana, upadeyatva and hāna, heyatva," - and we are told by scientists-evolutionists, that the origin of consciousness is marked by the feeling of pleasure and pain connected with the capacity to avoid the unpleasant and to strive after the pleasant. Most important, however, is that the triple character of the bhāvas becomes intelligible, nay fully convincing only in the light of these explanations of the unknown author of MBh. 12.187. An even more serious reason for doubt could be seen in the statement (12.187.17ab)
iti tanmayam evaitar sarvam sthavarajangamam/
"thus/hence all this which is immobile or mobile is nothing but a productof-transformation of that", tad referring to buddhi of the preceding verse." A problem is, however, posed by the fact that verse 17 (attested equally in the Bombay and Calcutta eds.) is not also found in the other two versions of this passage, viz., MBh. 12.239 (Poona ed.) and 12.287 (Calcutta ed.), although it belongs to those taken over by the Brhannaradiya-Purana."
punsadhisthità buddhis trisu bhāvesu vartare! kadácil labhate pritim kadácid autocati 121
13 Cf. eg Nyayabhasya (ed. Ganganatha Jha) p. III l or Nyayamanjari (ed.
Varadacharya) Vol. I, p. 174 ff. 14 It should, however, be noted that evidently these three emotional states are called
trividha vedana, in verse 12.187.28, and that this expression is explained to mean sättviki, rājasi and tamasi (vedana); see also verses 29-36. Yet, this fact rather adds
to the incongruity pointed out by me. 15 Cr. also VAN BUITENEN 1957b: 97. 16 As for the latter, see MBh. (Poona) Vol. 16, Moksadharmaparvan, Appendix !!
No. 1. 17 For a concordance, in tabular form, see MBh. (Poona), Vol. 16, p. 2113.
12 In spite of VAN BUITENEN 1956, 1957a and b.

Page #5

544
ALBRECHT WEZLER
ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY
545
This would explain why FRAUWALLNER does not at all refer to it, and it is indeed almost impossible to disagree with him especially as verse 17 interrupts the flow of the exposition of the functions of the various sense organs: There is indeed great likelihood that this verse is a later addition and is based on a central element of the evolution theory of "classical Samkhya”.
Yet this very short excursion into the Critical Edition of the Moksadharma, which was not available when FRAUWALLNER wrote his "Untersuchungen zum Mokşadharma", nor even when he published his "Geschichte der indischen Philosophie" - is nevertheless fully suited to remind us of the - I think: urgent - necessity to critically examine FRAUWALLNER's analysis of the Samkhya material on the basis of the new edition, and, of course, not only with regard to the many and highly intricate text-critical problems. For a statement like this, "we should not hence, without further ado, rely on the wording of individual verses, but we have to try to cautiously explain the individual elements in the teaching of the passage as a whole, if possible constantly comparing it with related doctrines",' sounds methodically sensible and almost natural, but is, at least potentially, also dangerous: An interpreter following this principle runs the risk of projecting onto the text an idea he happens to have formed of the meaning of the whole and of brushing aside everything that does not accord with it.
The development of the evolution theory - which FRAUWALLNER emphasizes "is intrinsically connected with a number of ideas which must therefore necessarily have the same origin", viz. the idea of primary matter (prakrti), the doctrine of the three qualities (guna) of primary matter and the doctrine of the 25 entities - is regarded by him as the creation of one of the most important thinkers the school of Samkhya has brought
forth. This individual was as a Brahmin conversant with the thoughts of the times of the Upanişads", stood in the tradition of the basic form of Samkhya found in the epic," ("epische Grundform des Sāmkhya") and he had also a "model" ("Vorbild”), i.e. "The Question of Suka' or at least a similar doctrine and was open to "suggestions"? i.e. had learnt from "The Instruction of Svetaketu" how to solve the problem, i.e. how to explain the fact that "the whole manifoldness of the phenomenal world springs out of the primary matter which he had "assumed - as a novel and bold idea - as the starting point of the series of evolutes and as the source of the world".
Quite clearly, FRAUWALLNER identified certain older texts, or parts of texts, as "connected with the evolution theory, i.e. as having played a role in the mental process of developing it, because of certain doctrinal agreements and similarities. In addition, however, what he again tacitly bases his reconstruction of this "basic transformation on is, apart from the simple fact of the existence of these texts or parts of texts, i.e. the contingency of their transmission, the possibility of explaining the creation of the evolution theory together with its various integral parts as being "modelled after", "suggested by", i.e. as being ultimately doctrinally indebted to them in a particular manner. And the picture FRAUWALLNER draws is most colourful, highly impressive, likely to make everybody nod approvingly, and the process which unfolds itself before the eyes of the readers does not lack a dramatic element - after all we are invited to take part in the thinking process of persons not at all afraid of "consistency or
18 He also ignores it in his translation (FRAUWALLNER 1992). 19 Its original position is a problem, too, see critical app on 12.187.10. 20 The various parts of the Säntiparvan were published between 1954 and 1966, 21 "Wir dürfen also nicht ohne weiteres auf den Wortlaut einzelner Verse bauen, sondem
müssen vorsichtig aus der Lehre des ganzen Stückes die einzelnen Teile zu erklären versuchen, womöglich unter beständiger Vergleichung verwandter Lehren."
(FRAUWALLNER 1925: 183) 22 "Mit der Evolutionslehre sind eine Anzahl von Vorstellungen verknüpft, die innerlich
mit ihr zusammenhangen und die daher notwendig den gleichen Ursprung haben müssen" (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 300).
23 "... dass wir in dem Schöpfer der Evolutionslehre einen der bedeutendsten Denker zu
sehen haben, welche die Sämkhya-Schule hervorgebracht hat" (FRAUWALLNER 1953:
300) 24 Ibidem, 305; see above n. 6. 25 Ibidem, 303 26 FRAUWALLNER 1953: 303. 27 "...Und gab ihm die Anregung." FRAUWALLNER 1953: 305. 28 Ibidem, 305; see above n. 6. 29 "und so kam er auf den neuartigen und kühnen Gedanken, als Ausgangspunkt der
Evolutionsreihe und des Ursprungs der Welt cine Urmaterie anzunehmen..."
(FRAUWALLNER 1953: 304) 30 FRAUWALLNER 1953: 299, see above n. 4.

Page #6

546
ALBRECHT WEZLER
ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY
547
boldness", who do not shy away from any conclusions") there is even a certain tension, but above all a high degree of persuasiveness, and finally, also on the part of the readers, the aesthetic satisfaction of having solved a rather complicated equation. And the readers are warned that if they do not agree with him they will be classed among those "who are not accustomed to think historically" - although this remark of FRAUWALLNER's most probably only refers to his observation that many of the theories, which can in fact be demonstrated to have been held at this period, are "queer" ("wunderlich"), "odd" ("absonderlich") and "farfetched" ("fernliegend")," i.e. although his remark has ultimately little, if anything at all, to do with his ideas about the process of the creation of the theories. In spite of all this I, as one among his readers, cannot help getting the feeling that what I am in is a kind of cyber-space, a world remarkably similar to reality, but in fact nothing but imaginary, at best intuitive."
Regarding the creation of the idea of the three gunas of primary matter - on which my attention is focussed for obvious reasons - FRAUWALLNER's assumptions are, as already mentioned in part, these: under the influence of "The Instruction of Svetaketu", according to which "all phenomena consist of three ur-elements" and "their different constitution depends on how these elements are mixed with one another and which of them preponderates"." "Pancasikha assumed that primary matter possesses three qualities which are connected with one another in different ways. Now this quality preponderates, now that"; one of the important differences between "The Instruction of Svetaketu" and Pancasikha's theory, i.e. the concept of qualities which replaces that of the ur-elements, is explained by FRAUWALLNER by stating that this difference had not that
importance" for Pancasikha, as the idea of quality as a separate category of being had not yet been developed in his time"." The answer Pancasikha gave to the question of which kind the three qualities are appears strange at first": for he determines them as goodness (sattva), passion (rajas) and darkness (tamas). "But", says FRAUWALLNER, "this answer is intelligible too if we consider the circumstances which brought it into being. 40 And these he sees in the great importance the theory of deliverance had in the "basic form of Samkhya found in the Epic" on the one hand, and, on the other in the philosophical school of Samkhya". "When Pancasikha tried to substantiate the origin of the feelings" - which cause the fettering of the Soul - he fell back, so to say, on the Epic doctrine of the states (bhavah) of cognition, and "he therefore assumed that goodness, passion and darkness dwell in the things of the outer world as qualities. And as they occur in all things and can emerge everywhere, Pancasikha came to see in them the qualities (gunāh) inherent in primary matter (prakrtih)."4!
The problem is indeed neatly resolved, and one feels a bit uneasy if one hesitates to applaud and rather thinks of revealing oneself to be a doubter, nay an unbeliever. One of the many objections I have to make is that FRAUWALLNER in fact gives two entirely different and ultimately alternative explanations for the idea of the three gunas, viz. that it is due to a particular kind of chrësis - to use GNILKA's term of "The Instruction of Svetaketu" and that it developed out of a reflection on the cause of feelings in connection with the older theory of the states of cognition. The
31 "Und er wird die Kühnheit und Konsequenz ihrer Schöpfer bewundern, die vor keinen
Folgerungen zurückscheuten..." (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 302). 32 The metaphor is perhaps not well chosen as FRAUWALLNER's reconstruction does not
seem to include any unknowns. 33 "... besonders für den, der nicht gewohnt ist, historisch zu denken" (FRAUWALLNER
1953: 302) 34 Quoted from FRAUWALLNER 1953: 301. 35 I am aware of the not by any means favourable conditions under which
FRAUWALLNER wrote his Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, and that he was
denied publishing the materials, reflections and deliberations on which it is based 36 Ibidem 305 ; see above n. 6. 37 Ibidem 306, see above n. 6.
38 "Aber dieser Unterschied hatte zu seiner Zeit nicht diese Bedeutung. Der Begriff der
Eigenschaft als eigener Kategorie des Seins war zu seiner Zeit noch nicht entwickelt."
(FRAUWALLNER 1953: 306.). 39 "Die Antwort, die Pancasikha auf diese Frage gibt, erscheint zunächst sonderbar."
(FRAUWALLNER 1953: 307). 40 "Aber auch diese Antwort wird verständlich, wenn wir die Umstände berücksichtigen,
die sie herbeiführten." (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 307) 41 "Als nun Pancasikha das Entstehen der Empfindungen zu begründen suchte und auf
die besprochene Weise dazu geführt wurde, objektive Entsprechungen in der · Aussenwelt dafür anzunehmen, war es für ihn das Gegebene, diese den erwähnien
drei Gruppen von psychischen Zustanden entsprechend anzusetzen. Er nahm also an, dass Gute, Leidenschaft und Finsternis den Dingen der Aussenwelt als Eigenschaften
innewohnen." (FRAUWALLNER 1953: 308). 42 CF. GNILKA 1972, his later works and the series of monographs edited by him under
the title Chrësis

Page #7

548
ALBRECHT WEZLER
ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY
549
evolution theory than FRAUWALLNER would seem to admit. Only when we have firm ground under our feet in regard to the origin(s) of the evolution theory shall we be in a position to address the problem of the historical relation between its cosmological and psychological aspects, a problem which we have been reminded of by FRANCO'' and more recently by our kind and bright host, Johannes BRONKHORST
SECONDARY LITERATURE
impression which I cannot help but gather is that FRAUWALLNER brings up. the Upanişadic passage mainly because of the in fact highly significant, viz. specific agreement between it and classical Samkhya regarding the association with the three colours. But as for this agreement, is it not, within the framework of FRAUWALLNER's reconstruction, extraordinarily amazing that this association was also taken over by Pancasikha, or preserved by him, for that matter?"
Coming to the end of my very modest contribution I should like to state, with no little emphasis, that a thorough revision of FRAUWALLNER'S reconstruction of this most important phase in the development of Samkhya is unavoidable, and that any new attempt at tackling the problems involved, which are admittedly of a very intricate nature, should by all means be carried out in a decidedly more explicit and transparent manner, i.e. in such a manner that the implicit assumptions, etc., and the methodological assumptions are stated in clear terms at every step. And it remains, of course, also to be seen whether those who have studied the relevant parts of the Moksadharma after FRAUWALLNER, i.e. VAN BUITENEN", BEDEKAR" and BAKKER," BISSCHOP and MOTEGI" and last but not least ARAKAMI" have not already achieved substantial and convincing progress, and what their criticism of FRAUWALLNER explicit or implicit, and VAN BUITENEN precisely consists in. Last but not least, it has to be noted that the observations of RŪPING" on the direct line" that can be traced from the Taittiriya-Upanisad and the Satapathabrahmana to the evolution-doctrine of Samkhya" would among other things suggest the working hypothesis that the role played by ChU 6.1 ff. in the development of Samkhya was one other than that conceived by FRAUWALLNER. The existence of what HACKER" has called "mechanistic cosmogonies" in the Vedas may well be of greater significance for the development of the
ARAKAMI 1989: Noritoshi Arakami, "The Formation of the Mokşadharma Chapter of the Säntiparvan of the Mahabharata", in: Indian Philosophy and Buddhism: Essays in Honour of Professor Kotatsu Fujita on His Sixtieth Birthday, Tokyo 1989 BAILEY 1996: Gregory M. Bailey, "Bharthari's Manipulation of the Feminine", IndoIranian Journal 39 (1996), 201-222 BAKKER 1982: Hans Bakker, "On the Origin of the Samkhya Psychology". Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens 26 (1982), 117-148 BEDEKAR 1957a: V. M. Bedekar, "Studies in Samkhya: Pancasikha and Caraka", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 38 (1957), 140-147 BEDEKAR 1957b: V. M. Bedekar, "Studies in Samkhya: The Teachings of Pancasikha in the Mahabharata", Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 38 (1957), 233. 244 BEDEKAR 1959: V. M. Bedekar, "The Mokşadharma Studies: The Place and Functions of the Psychical Organism". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 40. (1959), 262-288 BEDEKAR 1968: V. M. Bedekar, "The Doctrine of the Colours of the Souls in the Mahabharata". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 48 & 49 (1968), 329.
338
43 That this agreement is due to a second chrësis, i.e. to a person different from and
younger than Pancasikha is, I think, a possibility which can safely be precluded. 44 See VAN BUITENEN 1956, 1957a and b. 45 See BEDEKAR 1957a and b, 1959 and 1968 46 See BAKKER 1982 and his contribution to this volume 47 See their contributions to this volume. 48 See ARAKAMI 1989. 49 See ROPING 1977. 50 See above all HACKER 1965.
BEDEKAR 1973: Erich Frauwallner, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, Translated from the original German into English by V. M. Bedekar, Delhi-Patna-Varanasi 1973, Motilal Banarsidass VAN BUITENEN 1956: ). A B. van Buitenen, "Studies in Samkhya (1): An old text reconstituted", Journal of the American Oriental Society 76 (1956), 153-157 VAN BUITENEN 1957: J. A. B. van Buitenen, Studies in Samkhya (II): Ahamkara", Journal of the American Oriental Society 77 (1957), 15-25
51 See FRANCO 1991 52 Cf. his second circular for this workshop

Page #8
550 ALBRECHT WEZLER ORIGIN(S) OF THE GUNA-THEORY 551 VAN BUITENEN 1957b: J. A. B. van Buitenen, "Studies in Samkhya (III): Sattva", Journal of the American Oriental Society 77 (1957), 88-107 FRANCO 1991: Eliahu Franco, "What ever happened to the Yuktidipika", Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens 35 (1991), 123-137 FRAUWALLNER 1925a: Erich Frauwallner, "Untersuchungen zum Moksadharma. Die nicht-samkhyistischen Texte", Journal of the American Oriental Society 45 (1925), 51-67 = Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von G. Oberhammer u. E. Steinkellner, Wiesbaden 1982, Franz Steiner, 38-54 FRAUWALLNER 1925b: Erich Frauwallner, "Untersuchungen zum Moksadharma. Die samkhyistischen Texte", Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 32 (1925), 179-206 = Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von G. Oberhammer u. E. Steinkellner, Wiesbaden 1982, Franz Steiner, 55-82 FRAUWALLNER 1926: Erich Frauwallner, "Untersuchungen zum Moksadharma. Das Verhaltnis zum Buddhismus", Wiener Zeitschrift fur die Kunde des Morgenlandes 33 (1926), 57-68 = Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von G. Oberhammer u. E. Steinkellner, Wiesbaden 1982, Franz Steiner, 83-94 FRAUWALLNER 1953: Erich Frauwallner, Geschichte der indischen Philosophie, I. Bd., Salzburg1953, Otto Muller FRAUWALLNER 1992: Erich Frauwallner, Nachgelassene Werke II. Philosophische Texte des Hinduismus. Hrsg. von Gerhard Oberhammer und Chlodwig H. Werba, Wien 1992, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften GNILKA 1972: Christian Gnilka, Aetas Spiritalis, Bonn 1972, Hanstein HACKER 1965: Paul Hacker, "Mechanistische und theistische Kosmogonie im Hinduismus", Zeitschrift fur Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschaft 49 (1965), 17-22 = Kleine Schriften, hrsg. von L. Schmithausen, Wiesbaden 1978, Franz Steiner, 484-495 OBERHAMMER 1991: Gerhard Oberhammer, unter Mitarbeit von Emst Prets und Joachim Prandstetter, Terminologie der fruhen philosophischen Scholastik in Indien. Ein Begriffsworterbuch zur altindischen Dialektik, Erkenntnislehre und Methodologie. Bd. I: A-I, Wien 1991, Osterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften RUPING 1977: Klaus Ruping, "Zur Emanationslehre im Moksadharma", Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 3 (1977), 3-10 SLAJE 1995a: Walter Slaje, "asubhasamjna und pratipaksabhavana: Zur Tradition einer 'Vergegenwartigung des Widerwartigen' in der Soteriologie des Nyaya", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 145.1 (1995), 109-124 SLAJE 19956: Walter Slaje, "Jayantabhasta uber die Beseitigung der Leidenschaften", in: Studia Onomastica et Indogermanica. Festschrift fur Fritz Lochner von Huttenbach zum 65. Geburtstag, hrsg. von Michaela Ofitsch und Christian Zinco. (Arbeiten aus der Abteilung 'Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft' Graz .9.), Graz 1995, 271-278 SYED 1998: Renate Syed, "Objekt des Begehrens - Objekt des Abscheus. Zum Bild des weiblichen Korpers in ausgewahlten indischen Texten", Asiatische Studien, Etudes Asiatiques LII, 1 (1998), 193-260 HARA 1974: Minoru Hara, "Expressions for 'Numberless' in the Mahabharata", in: Science and Human Progress. Essays in Honour of late Prof. D. D. Kosambi, Scientist. Indologist and Humanist, Bombay 1974, Popular Prakashan, 154-163 LIENHARD 1996: Siegfried Lienhard, "Lucky Numbers in Ancient Indian Literature", in: Langue, style et structure dans le monde indien. Centenaire de Louis Renou. Acte Colloque international (Paris, 25-27 janvier 1996) edites par N. Balbir et G.-J. Pinault avec la collaboration de J. Fezas, Paris 1996, Honore Champion, 523-536 OBERHAMMER 1987: Gerhard Oberhammer, "Transcendental Structure of Human Bondage According to Paksilasvamin", in: Philosophical Essays. Professor Anantala Thakur Felicitation Volume, Calcutta 1987, Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 16-27 = Gerhard OBERHAMMER, Philosophy of Religion in Hindu Thought. Translated and Edited by Anand Amaldass, Delhi 1989, Sri Satguru Publication, 86-115.