________________
10
Esther & Solomon
This can be clearly understood on the strength of the fore-going disCUSSION" Madhave recognised & plurality of atomic primordial entities (pradhanas)-this would mean a thorough change in the concepts of the Simkhya system, or even its anathilation, and so Madhava is regarded as Santhya-nataka, and hailed as such by others
(b) Kumanla in his slokarartılka (Codang sutra, 249, pp 112-113, Madras Univ) criticises the view of a teacher who finds fault with the Mimgmsakas for advocating the slaughter of animals for sacrificial purposes Umbeka in his commentary on the Slakavarttika states that it 18 Madhava, * prominent Samkhya exponent who is referred to and criticised by Kumanla Keeping aside inference, etc Madhava proved the sinfulness of agnışomiya, dc only on the strength of the dependence of dharma (merit) and adharma demeclt) on jojunctions (vidhl) and probibitions (nuşedha) 'Ma himsyat sarua bhūfants' prohibits the slaughter of animals, which is therefore sinful irrespective of whether it is donc for a sacrifice or otherwise as this does not make any difference
(Sarakhya-nayaka-Madhavas to aha-Vlkayanumanadın vidhi-pratışedhatoantbandhanatoam ea dharma dharmyor avalambya'gnisomiyadışı adharmatam tha kvacid iti flokatrayena )
c) Commenting on agamabhranbakarinan aho-puruşikaya anyatha rocanasambhavar' of Dharmakirti's Pramanavarttika (p 595), Karnakagomin says that here Dharmakirti affirms the possibility of the sacred texts being violated and the tradition of the texts disrupted or distorted by persons on Account of their sense of cgo or the like they can distort the tradition of the sacred texts by composing differently As for example, "Samkhyanalake Madhava' composed the Samkhya-siddhanta' differently due to his cgo (Agamabhramba-karıņam ity adina Sampradaya-vicchedena racanantarasambharam era samarthay ate; agamabhrama-karinam pursam anyatha piroq. racana-vaiparltyena racanadarlanad iti sambandhak, anyatha-racandyarh karajam aha-aho puruşikayet) adı, ahopuruşikayely ahammanitvena, yaiha Sankhyanafaka-Madhavena Samhhya-sıddhantasya'nyatha racanam krtam)
(d) In bts commentary, Vipancltartha op Dharmakoti's Vadanyaya, Śantaraksta writes, "yad aha, dharmasya dravyad arthantaratvath syad itt, athapy asmad-vaiphalye syat pūrvakan Kapilan ati parya Samkhyanath fakeMadhavavar" (Vipancirartha, p 52, Mababodhi-sabba, Beoares, 1936 AC)
2 This exposition of Dunåga s criticism of Madhava's vlewu is wholly based on
Dignaga, on Perception' (op 87-59, 188-157)-Masaala Hatton I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to this work. See the 'Geschichte der Indischen Philosophie' I. Pp. 404-408 (Reihe Wort und Antwort Bd, 6, Sukaburg. 1953 (I Bd ), 1956 (U Bd )
