________________
TATTVA-KAUMUDI
different persons, see H. I. 1., 1, 218, 3n ). The only definite conclusion that we can arrive at is that Is varakrsna is older than Vasubandhu [in 300 A D., see V. A. Smith: Early History of India, 3rd edn., pp 328–334; also Kalıpada Bhattacharya “Sume Problems of Samkhya Philosophy and Sankhya Literature ", 1. H. Q, Sept., 1932, pp. 519–520. According to Bhattacharya İs'varkişna flourished in the 1st century A.D ] and flourished in the second or the third century A.D). The reinark of Svapnes'vara, identifying Is' varakrşna with Kālıdāsa, should be rejected as mistaker. (See I, I, II, 255, In. ).
The work of Is'varakrsna had 70 verses in it. But now, finding the bhūsya of Gaudapada rupning upto the 69th verse only and finding that the verses following the 69th have nothing of Sāmkhya in them, it is believed that one of these verses is missing. The question has been discussed in detail in the foot note to 61st Kārıkā. Mr. S S. Pathak has also attacked this problem ( see, “ The Problein of the Sāmkhya-Kārıkās ', I A., Vol. LII, 1923, pp. 177-181). He says(1) In the 72nd Kāriki we read the phrase "qtarjaai aang" which means “free from the opinions of others". This goes against the Kārkā found by the late B. G. Tilak, as the latter expounds the opinions of others in the shape of God, Soul, Time, or Nature being the causes of Creation. To this we reply : In the Karikā of Mr. Tilak, the opinion of others has been merely referred to and not expounded. The phrase Tarjaaltat: means the exclusion of the expounding of others opinions and not the exclusion of mere reference even. Otherwise, "zlargfa: A fagfagfasty*:" would also be open to fault, for, here there is no exclusion of the opinion of the Mimāṁsakas. (2) Is varakrsna has summarised the work of Pancas'ıkha in his own 'āryās. Now in the Saştıtantra, there is a mention of five alternative opinions i viz., inaking one of Brahman, Puruşa Sakti, Niyati. and Kāla. the cause of creation ) which are to be rejected. But in ths.
