________________
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.