________________
TATTVA-KAUMUDI
the conclusion that Varsaganya is the author of Şastitantra. But the reading in the Y. Bh. is Aria C , while as the reading in the Bhāmati is ATT TTESE54. The reading cannot have been deliberately altered by Vācaspatı, for a scholar of his reputation would not commit such a crime. On the other hand, froin the opinions of Virşnganya as found quoted in Buddhistic works, it seems that he altered the reading. Moreover, from Bhāskara's remark, viz., **Tenerigorrarenanya: " (on Br. S, I, 1, 1), we can infer that Kapıla was the author of a Saştıtantra. (See also P. 0. C., Lahore, II, p. 882m where Mr. S'āstri states Şaştıtantra is the real Sāmkhya-dars'ana written by Kapila. Mr. Bhattacharya also holds this view. See J. H. Q., Sept., 1932, p. 518 ). This old Saşsıtantra of Kapıla has been enlarged by Pancas'ıkha in his Saşțitantra.
To this we reply-One should not put implicit faith in commentators when they refer to the names of writers. For example, we see that Bhatta- Utpala, in his commentary on Bphat-Samhitā, quotes the verses ( 22-30 ) from Sāmkhya. Kárikā, preceded by the remark "Aureferall:". As regards the alteration of Ara into 49a, if it is considered impossible in the case of Vacaspati, it should be still more impossible in the case of Varşaganya whom Vacaspati refers to with great reverence as arg areas. The opinion of Vārşaganya, as quoted in the Buddhist work Abhidharmakos'a ( viz., nothing new comes into existence, nor anything born is ever destroyed; that what is existent, is ever existent; that what is non-existent can never become existent) is simply a statement of the sat-kārya theory. It is futile to read from it the difference between the theories of modification according to Samkhya and Yoga, as Mr. Hiriyanna does. His arguments can be valid only when it is admitted that Varşagaṇya altered arga into arda. But that requires proof.
