________________
Samkhya Ideas in Pre-īsvarakrạna Literature
25
literature; while specific Sāṁkhya terms find mention in the later portions : what bearing this fact has on the history of Sāmkhya darśana, we shall study, later on.
SĀMKHYA IN THE MAHĀBHĀRATA13
(400 B.C. to 400 A.D.) 13
After the Upanişads, our next sources for studying the development of Samkhya ideas are the works like the Mahābharata, the Smộtis and the Purānas. It should be pointed out here that by putting this discussion before Isvarakrşna's Sāmkhya, I do not wish to imply that all these works preceded in time to the Samkhyakārikā. While some portions of these works dealing with Sāmkhya might have very well preceded Isvarakațşna, there might be others which would be due to the influence of Isvarakļşņa. As, however, there is not enough evidence to discriminate between the various strata of these works, I have thought it proper to follow the old tradition of taking the Mbh., the Smộtis and the Purāņas together as constituting the Smộti tradition to be distinguished from the Srauta literature.
In the Mbh. at XII.318, three schools of Samkhya are mentioned viz. those who admitted twenty-four categories, those who admitted twenty-five and those who admitted twenty-six categories. The school of twenty-four, according to Das Gupta, agrees with the views of Pañcasikha found in the Mbh. XII.219 as also with those of Caraka, a work on medicine which will be noticed hereafter, The school of twenty-five categories, Das Gupta identifies with the well-known orthodox Samkhya System of Isvarakļşņa.14 This, however, is not exactly the case. The one that would identify the twenty-fifth category with that of the Purusas, regarding the latter
12 For a detailed account of Sainkhya in the Mbh., vide Samkhya System
by Keith, Ch. III, and Great Epic of India by Hopkins p. 97 onwards. 13 'The Great Epic of India', p. 398
Hopkins gives different stages of additions to the (pic. According to
him, the didactic matter was included about 200 B.C. 14 History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 216-217.
