Authorship Of Sastitantram

SR No.: 269347
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: G Oberhammer
Publisher: G Oberhammer
Total Pages: 22
Language: English
Classification: Article
File Size: 2 MB

Page 11

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