________________
INTRODUCTION
Avyāpi in (a) has not been commented upon by Aniruddha. The word pravartate in (6) is not found in the Ms. in Mr. S'astri's possession.
The arguments of Mr. S'āstri do not stand a close examination. If Aniruddha did not comment upon the word avyāpi, then it alone does not mean that the word did not exist formerly. Moreover. Vijñānabhikṣu has commented upon this word. Again, what is there to prove that the Ms. in Mr. Sāstri's possession is the oldest and the only correct Ms., whose one reading should decide so inportant a question as the authorship of Kapıla In his zeal to disprove the theory that “the Sūtras were composed on the basis of the Kārikās," Mr. S'āstrı says that if we change the order of words in" #TATTETULIA: 1071 ATTE: 49" and read it as "ATHIRIFrTorghat: 7107177: qua 17:" we attain anuştubh metre in place of ūrya. But this flight of imagination, vis., changing the reading itself, is too much to be swallowed even by ordinary people. Therefore, Mr. S'āstrı has failed to disprove that the S. Sa are based upon the Kārıkās
There is a tradition that Paramartha translated the Kārıkās into Chinese in 557–569 A.D., (Bh., Com., pp. 175–178). According to Paramartha, Buddhamitra the teacher of Vasubandhu, was vanquished in debale by Vindhyavāsa, the Samkhya-teacher; Vindhyavāsa died before Vasubandhu. Thus, Vindhyavāsa and Vasubandhu were contemporaries. There is another tradition, according to which Vindhyavāsa was a contemporary of king Bālāditya and pupil of Varşaganya. A third tradition tells us that the pupil of Vārşaganya composed Hiranyasaptati. But all these traditions should be taken as having no historical value. Otherwise, if Vindhyavāsa, the author of Hiranyasaptati and. Isvarkņşına, the author of Sāmkhya-Kárikā are both identified then it would lead to a historical confusion, as stated above. Das Gupta also thinks Is' varkyąna and Vindhyavāsa us two
