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 20

S. S. I, 127 differs so much from the text of the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttiḥ that, in order to derive it from the Vṛttiḥ, one must consider it as a paraphrase.
b) The Pañcaśikha 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 Pañcasikha.
c) The Pañcaśikha-fragment in S. S. VI, 68, likewise, is not to be found in the Tattvasamāsasūtravṛttiḥ.
This shows that the name of a Pañcasikha appeared in the Samkhya Renaissance even independently of the Tattvasamāsasūtravrttiḥ, allegedly attributed to Pañcasikha. Yet we shall consider more closely the Pañcaśikha-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 vyaptiḥ. With the words adheyaśaktiyoga iti Pañcasikhaḥ, the definition of vyapti of a Pañcasikha is given. The problem of vyaptiḥ 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 Samkhyasūtras, 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 vyaptiḥ such as we find it in Pañcasikha's fragment cannot be historically fitted into the period of the old Pañcasikha. Thus we can conclude that the teacher who defined vyāptiḥ as adheyaśaktiyogaḥ is to be dated later than Vrsagana and cannot possibly be identified with the old Pancaśikha. 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 Tattvasamāsasūtras and the Samkhyasūtras.
57) E. Frauwallner: Zur Erkenntnislehre des klassischen Samkhyasystems, WZKSO Bd. II, p. 123. Cf. Jayamangalā, pp. 8, 9-15 and Nyayavārttikatātparyaṭīkā, p. 165, 2 (K. S. S. No. 24).
89