________________
XXXVIII] Doctrine of the Pāšupata-sūtras
143 source book, and yet it cannot be identified with the Pāśupata system of Śrīkaņķha or the Vāyavīya-samhitā.
It is also important to know that the Pāśupata system of the Pāśupata-sūtras has but little connection with the idea of prakrti as energy or otherwise, as we find in the Purāņic Pāśupata system. None of the categories of Sāņkhya appear to be of any relevance regarding the creation of the world. About Yoga also one must always distinguish this Pāśupata-yoga and the Pāśupata-yogas referred to in the Purāņas or in the Yoga-sūtra of Patañjali. The word yoga is used in the sense of continuous contact and not the suppression of all mental states (citta-vrtti-nirodha), as we find in the Pātañjala-yoga. The emphasis here is on pratyāhāra, that is, withdrawing the mind from other objects and settling it down to God. There is therefore here no scope for nirodha-samādhi, which precedes kaivalya in Pātañjala-yoga. It may not be impossible that the Saiva influence had somehow impressed upon the Yogasūtra of Patañjali, which apparently drew much of its material from Buddhism, and this becomes abundantly clear if we compare the Vyāsa-bhāsya on the Yoga-sūtra with the Abhidharmakosa of Vasubandhu. The Sāmkhya-sūtra that we now possess was probably later than the Yoga-sūtra, and it therefore presumed that the metaphysical speculations of Sāmkhya could be explained without the assumption of any God for which there is no proof. The Yogasūtra did not try to establish īśvara or God which is also the name for Siva, but only accepted it as one of its necessary postulates. As a matter of fact, none of the systems of Indian philosophy tried to establish God by any logical means except the Naiyayikas, and according to tradition the Naiyāyikas are regarded as Saivas.
In this connection, without any reference to some Agama works to which we may have to refer later on, we can trace the development of the Pāśupata system in the tenth, eleventh, and up to the fourteenth centuries. It has been said before that the Iśvarakāraņins, referred to by Sankara, may refer to the Naiyāyikas, and now I shall be referring to Gaņakārikā, a Pāśupata work attributed to Haradattacarya, on which Bhāsarvajña wrote a commentary, called the Ratnațīkā. Bhāsarvajña is well known as the author of the Nyāya-sāra, on which he wrote a commentary called Nyāyabhūsana. In this he tried to refute the views of Dinnāga, Dharmakīrti, Prajñā-karagupta, the author of Pramāņa-vārttikālamkāra,
