Sambodhi 2006 Vol 30

Author(s): J B Shah, N M Kansara
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 45

Vol. XXX, 2006
VARIOUS VIEWS ON SVABHĀVA: A CRITICAL SURVEY
39
Gaudapāda (sixth or seventh century) follows the earlier commentary in his glosses on SK, 61. He writes:
Others say, spontaneity is the cause: “By what (or whom) the swan is created white, the peacock of many colours," that is, they
are so naturally (or spontaneously).
Then, dismissing all such doctrines from the Sāṁkhya point of view, Gaudapāda adds:
Nature (prakrti), from its universal creative power, is the cause of time, spontaneity merges into it (nature): and time, therefore, is not the cause; neither is spontaneity. Nature alone,
therefore, is the cause; and there is no cause of nature.32
Māțhara (ninth century or later) simply repeats his two earlier commentators. He too quotes the same verse and declares: “There is no such object called svabhāva from which the origin of beings is consistent. Therefore, he who says that svabhāva is the cause is wrong."33
However, Vācaspatimiśra (ninth/ tenth century) does not mention svabhāva or kāla or any such doctrine in his comments on SK, v. 27 and v. 61.
Vedānta The Advaitva Vedāntins too used to take svabhāva in various senses. Sankara (ninth century) in his commentary on Br. Up., 4. 3. 6 makes the exponent (pūrvapakşin) say, "Nor must one deny the natural property of objects, for the natural heat of fire or the cold of water is not due to any other cause."34 In his commentary on this passage, Anandagiri, however, connects the doctrine of svabhāva with the Lokāyatika-s? (which Sankara does not do; he left the exponent unnamed). The same tendency is manifested by some commentators on Sarvajñat Muni's SS, 1. 528. Some explain the doctrine of svabhāva simply as accidental (Nrsimha Aśrama (p. 491) and Madhusūdana Sarasvati (p. 678) ) while Rāmatirtha (p. 413) remains noncommittal on this issue. Some again (Nșsiṁha Aśrama (ibid.), Rāmatirtha (ibid.) and Agnicit Purusottama (p. 414) ) associate svabhāva with the Cārvāka, as did Nilakantha in his commentary on the Mbh., Āraṇyakaparvan, 33. 11 (= vulgate ed. 32. 13). 35
On the other hand, pseudo-Sankara, śankarānanda and Amalānanda clearly distinguish between svabhāva and yadrchhā. While commenting on Sv. Up.,