On Term Antahsamjna

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler

Page 12

122
ABORI: R. G. Bhandarkar 150th Birth Anniversary Volume
Sāmkhya theory of cognition; for, the argument brought forward here is that if antahamiria were to be taken literally it could not form a specific property of plants only because each and every puruşa, whatever the kind of body he is endowed with, human, animal, vegetable or divine, etc., cognizes only internally, i. e. that which is presented to him by the buddhi as the last and highest element of the corresponding "inner organ” (antahkarana ). In fact, the phrase puruşaś cetayate 50 is found quite often, especially in philosophical texts of the Jainas; it forms part of a string by which the process of perception, etc., is described as a whole and which runs thus :51 indriyāny artham alocayanti ahamkāro 'bhimanyate manaḥ samkal payati buddhir adhyavasyati purusas cetayate. An exact parallel has not yet been discovered in any of the (few) extant Samkhya texts; but a passage in the Mātharavrtti62 is almost identical. Although it cannot hence be taken for granted that it must be a quotation in the strict sense of the word, there cannot be the least doubt that it represents a doctrinally and terminologically53 faithful formulation of the corresponding Samkhya tenet. The fact that Medhātithi expresses himself in a manner which strongly resembles the final clause of this quotation does not, however, by itself indicate that his first explanation is in toto Sāmkhyistic. Rather the Samkhya theory of cognition might have simply come first to his mind; and it should also be noted in this connection that the main part of his explanation (saminā' buddhis ... ucyante ) does not contain any element which would point to a Samkhya background; for buddhi is not a specific term of this school of thought and can easily be accounted for as meant to specify the meaning samjñā has as second member of the compound under discussion, without having to borrow it from any of the philosophical authors. On the other hand, there is also nothing which would definitely exclude any relation with the Samkhya..
Medhātithi's first explanation is attractive in that it starts from the assumption that antah is implicitly opposed to bahiḥ,56 But is it really absolutely flawless ? Or is it not rather equally open to criticism in as much as what is ultimately meant by calling plants antaḥsamjña is according to it that
50. The variant' buddhyadhyavasitam artham purusa$ cetayate, met with e. g. Siddhiviniscayatīkā (cf. fn. 57) p. 303 f., is to all appearances a partial reformulation by Auantavlrya. For further references see Nyāyakumudacandra (ed. by Mahendrakumar Nyāyaśāstri, 2 vols., Bombay 1931/41), p. 190, fn. 2.
51. Cf. Siddhiviniscayatika of Sri Anantaviryācārya... ed. by Dr. Mahendrakumar Jain (Bharatiya Jñānapitha Kāśi), 2 Vols., Varanasi 1959, pp. 99, 225 and 58r.
52. Viz, on Samkhyakärikā 36. — Cf, also Sāmkhyagaptativrtti (V1), ed. by E. A. Solomon, Ahmedabad 1973, p. 47.
53. Cf. e. g. Yuktidipikā, (ed. R. C. Pandoy Delhi/Varanasi/Patna 1967), p. 116, lines 22 and 29.
54. Cf. § 2. 4. 3.