The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4

The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4: Samkhya, A Dualist Tradition in Indian Philosophy

Copyright Date: 1987
Pages: 690
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    The Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Volume 4
    Book Description:

    Samkhya is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, system of classical Indian philosophy. This book traces its history from the third or fourth century B. C. up through the twentieth century. The Encyclopedia as a whole will present the substance of the various Indian systems of thought to philosophers unable to read the Sanskrit and having difficulty in finding their way about in the translations (where such exist). This volume includes a lengthy introduction by Gerald James Larson, which discusses the history of Samkhya and its philosophical contours overall. The remainder of the book includes summaries in English of all extant Sanskrit texts of the system.

    Originally published in 1987.

    ThePrinceton Legacy Libraryuses the latest print-on-demand technology to again make available previously out-of-print books from the distinguished backlist of Princeton University Press. These paperback editions preserve the original texts of these important books while presenting them in durable paperback editions. The goal of the Princeton Legacy Library is to vastly increase access to the rich scholarly heritage found in the thousands of books published by Princeton University Press since its founding in 1905.

    eISBN: 978-1-4008-5353-3
    Subjects: Philosophy

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-vi)
  2. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-x)
    (pp. xi-xiv)
      (pp. 3-42)

      The term “sāṃkhya” means “relating to number, enumeration, or calculation.” As an adjective, the term refers to any enumerated set or grouping and can presumably be used in any inquiry in which enumeration or calculation is a prominent feature (for example, mathematics, grammar, prosody, psychology, medicine, and so forth). As a masculine noun, the term refers to someone who calculates, enumerates, or discriminates properly or correctly. As a neuter noun, the term comes to refer to a specific system of dualist philosophizing that proceeds by a method of enumerating the contents of experience and the world for the purpose of...

      (pp. 43-104)

      Although the main outlines of the history and literature of Sāṃkhya are reasonably clear, the same cannot be said about the details of the system qua philosophical system. As was mentioned in the last chapter, there appears to have been a break in the Sāṃkhya textual tradition at an early date. Beginning with Ī śvarakṛṣṇa’sSāṃkhyakārikāand thereafter, there are only summaries and digests of the system, and many of the commentators are almost as much at a loss to explain the full system as is a modern interpreter. This is unfortunate, for in many ways the evidence suggests that...

      (pp. 107-112)

      In verse 69 of theSāṃkhyakārikā, Īśvarakṛṣṇa indicates that the Sāṃkhya system has been “fully enumerated” or “explained” by the “supreme sage” (paramarśi), who is unanimously identified within the Sāṃkhya tradition as the sage Kapila. In verse 70 of theKārikā, Īśvarakṛṣṇa informs us further that out of compassion Kapila transmitted the knowledge of Sāṃkhya to Āsuri who in turn passed on the system to Pañcaśikha. Moreover, according to Isvarakrsna in verse 70, the Samkhya system (tantra) was “expanded” or “widely disseminated” (bahudhā kṛta) by Pañcaśikha. Various attempts have been made in the commentarial tradition to trace the line of...

      (pp. 113-124)

      If Kapila and Āsuri are only vague memories in the Sāṃkhya tradition, then it must be said that Pañcaśikha, the third teacher within the tradition, is a confused memory. There are a number of references to Pañcaśikha in the older literature, and it is quite clear that Pañcaśikha is a revered teacher for both the Sāṃkhya and Yoga traditions, or, put somewhat differently, Pañcaśikha may well represent a period in which Sāṃkhya and Yoga had not yet become separate or distinct traditions. The name “Pañcaśikha” appears already in the Pāli Canon (in theSakkapañhasutta1.2 of theDighanikāya) wherein a...

      (pp. 125-128)

      The “Science of Sixty Topics” (ṣaṣṭitantra) appears to represent either (a) one or more philosophical texts of Sāṃkhya by that name, or (b) a sort of stereotyped format for discussing Sāṃkhya, that is to say, the “system of sixty topics,” or even a proper name for the system in the early philosophical period. Regarding the enumeration of the sixty topics, there are two divergent accounts in the literature. According to the Sāṃkhya philosophical texts proper, namely,Suvarṅasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, Sāṃkhyasaptatativṛtti, Yuktidipikā, Jayamaṅgalā, MāṭharavṛttiandSāṃkhyatattvakaumudi, ṣaṣṭitantrabreaks down as follows: ten “principal topics” (mūlikārtha), and fifty “categories” (padārtha), including five “fundamental...

      (pp. 129-130)

      From the evidence of theYuktidipikā(and see below under separate entry) it is now clear that there were a number of teachers of Sāṃkhya philosophy proper (as distinct from the Proto-Sāṃkhya traditions discussed thus far) prior to Īśvarakṛṣṇa, including such as Paurika, Pañcādhikaraṇa, Patañjali (the Sāṃkhya teacher), Vārṣagaṇya, and Vindhyāvasin. These teachers are mentioned in passing throughout theYuktidipikāas exponents of Sāṃkhya whose views diverged from Īśvarakṛṣṇa or whose views were synthesized by Īśvarakṛṣṇa . It is difficult to offer even approximate dates for these older teachers (especially Paurika, Pañcādhikaraṇa, and Patañjali, and see separate entries below for...

    • VĀRṢAGAṆYA or Vṛṣagaṇa, Vṛṣagaṇavīra or Vārṣagaṇa
      (pp. 131-140)

      The earliest reference to a certain Vārṣagaṇyais to be found inMokṣadharmaXII.306.57, in which the name figures as one among many older teachers of Sāṃkhya and Yoga. The list is as follows: Jaigīṣavya, Asita, Devala (sometimes Asita Devala), Parāśara, Vārṣagaṇya, Pancāśikha, Kapila, Śuka, Gautama, Arṣṭiṣena, Garga, Nārada, Āsuri, Pulastya, Sanatkumāra, Śukra, and Kaśyapa. The listing is obviously not meant to be chronological and indicates little more than that, in the first centuries of the Common Era (the approximate date for the later portions of the epic), the name Vārṣagaṇya was linked with older Sāṃkhya and Yoga traditions.

      Further references...

    • VINDHYAVĀSIN, or Vindhyavāsa
      (pp. 141-146)

      Although it is true with regard to the Chinese Buddhist evidence mentioned at the outset of the entry on Varsaganya, that is, the accounts of Paramārtha, Hsüan-tsang, and Kuei-chi, that Takakusu’s suggested identification of Vārṣagaṇya, Vindhyavāsin and Īśvarakṛṣṇa is clearly incorrect, Takakusu has nevertheless persuasively shown that Paramārtha’s “Life of Vasubandhu” can be taken seriously as a reasonably accurate (albeit rough) account of events relating to Sāṃkhya. Kuei-chi’s account is, on the other hand, highly suspect, for he appears to have confused a number of matters. His reference, for example, to eighteen schools of Sāṃkhya is suspiciously similar to Buddhist...

      (pp. 147-148)

      Another well-known name of a Sāṃkhya teacher coming down from ancient times is that of Mādhava. Mādhava is mentioned by Hsüantsang, Dignāga, Jinendrabuddhi, Kumārila, Karṇagomin, Śāntarakṣita, and Bhāsarvajña as being an eminent Sāṃkhya teacher but one who seriously deviated from the Sāṃkhya position, so much so that he is frequently called “Sāṃkhyanāśaka,” or “a destroyer of the Samkhya.” Hsüan-tsang refers to a debate that Madhava held (and lost) against the Buddhist teacher, Guṇamati, and Frauwallner dates this debate near the year 500 of the Common Era.¹ Hattori suggests that Mādhava was, therefore, an older contemporary of Dignāga (480-540) and had...

      (pp. 149-164)

      We have already discussed (see above entries on Vārṣaganya and Vindhyavāsin) the approximate date of Īśsvarakṛṣṇa (350-450) and have suggested that Isvarakrsna’s work, theSāṃkhyakārikā,represents an “in-house” final summary formulation of the “system of sixty topics”(ṣaṣṭitantra).About Īśvarakṛṣṇa himself, nothing is known beyond the testimony of the Chinese translation that he was a Brahmin of the Kausikagotra,or family, and the testimony ofJayamaṅgalāthat he was aparivrājaka.From the evidence of theYuktidipikāit is fair to say that he was in the tradition of the followers of Vārṣagaṇya, and in view of the fact...

    • PATAÑJALI (the Yoga teacher) YOGASŪTRA
      (pp. 165-166)

      The literature of the philosophy of Yoga will be treated in a separate volume of theEncyclopedia,so, there is no need to discuss it in detail here. Because we have construed Yoga philosophy as one type of Sāṃkhya, however—Pātañjala-Sāṃkhya—and because there are some indications that this divergent form of Samkhya may represent the Vindhyavāsin revision of the followers of Vārṣagaṇya, it may be useful to offer chronological approximations for some of the more important texts of Yoga.

      Concerning the compiler of theYogasūtra,¹ namely Patañjali the Yoga teacher, there is no clear consensus. The later Indian tradition...

      (pp. 167-178)

      Among the eight commentaries on theSāṃkhyākarikā,five of them are so alike in overall content and specific wording as to suggest an identity among one or more of them, an extensive borrowing of one from another, or that all five stem from a common original (some sort ofUr-commentary, now lost). The five commentaries with common content are Paramārtha’sSuvarṇasaptati,Gauḍapada’sBhāṣya,theMāṭharavṛtti, theSāṃkhyasaptativṛtti(V₁), and theSāṃkhyavṛtti(V₂). It was originally thought that Paramārtha’s Chinese version (translated by Paramārtha between 557 and 569) was the same as theBhāṣyaof Gauḍapāda, but Takakusu’s exhaustive (and still...

      (pp. 179-192)

      This manuscript was edited for the first time by E. A. Solomon and published by Gujarat University in 1973.¹ The edition is based on a single palm-leaf manuscript preserved in the Jesalmere Grantha Bhandara. The first seventy-one verses of theKārikāare commented upon by the Sāṃkhyavṛtti. The name of the author of the commentary is not mentioned, but Solomon has ventured the hypothesis that this may be the earliest of the extant commentaries on theKārikā,possibly written by Īśvarakṛṣṇa himself (hence making it asvopajñavṛttior autocommentary) and thereby representing the original Sanskrit commentary upon which Paramartha based...

      (pp. 193-208)

      This is the second of two newly edited texts (see preceding entry onSāṃkhyaoṛtti) prepared by E.A. Solomon and published by Gujarat University.¹ The edition is based on a single palm-leaf manuscript preserved in the Jesalmere Grantha Bhandara. The name of the author of this commentary starts with the syllable “ma” but the manuscript leaf is broken after that point and the full name cannot be recovered. The commentary is nearly identical to the extant version ofMāṭharavṛtti(and see below under appropriate entry). In fact, argues Solomon, our presentMāṭharavṛttiappears to be an expanded version of this commentary....

      (pp. 209-224)

      If one does not accept the identity of the Gaudapada of theSāṃkhyakārikabhāyawith the early Vedāntin Gauḍapāda of theMāṇṇḍūkyakārikā,then nothing is known about Gauḍapāda the Sāṃkhya writer other than the fact that he wrote a commentary on theKārikathat has much in common with Paramārtha’s Chinese translation, and with theSāṃkhyavṛtti, SāṃkhyasaptatUṛttiandMāṭharavṛtti.As we have been suggesting, these five commentaries bear a strong family resemblance, and, although they are not by any means identical, they all appear to have used a common original and may, in addition, be dependent to some extent on one...

      (pp. 225-226)

      We have already discussed (see above entry on Patañjali the Yoga teacher) some of the problems relating to the date of the Yogasūtrabhāsya and Frauwallner’s tentative guess that it may have been composed by around 500 of the Common Era. The name “Vyāsa” or “Vedavyāsa” is obviously not correct, and there is no way of determining the correct name of the author. P. Chakravarti¹ and Frauwallner² are probably on the right track in suggesting that the author of theYogasūtrabhāsyais indebted to that revision of Sāṃkhya philosophy put forth by Vindhyavāsin (see Vindhyavāsin entry above)....

      (pp. 227-270)

      As this volume has made abundantly clear, theYuktidlpikāis without doubt our most important extant text for understanding Sāṃkhya in its early and formative philosophical development. No other text compares with it in terms of its detailed treatment of Sāṃkhya arguments and its apparently thorough familiarity with the various teachers and schools that preceded Īśvarakṛṣṇa, and it is no exaggeration to assert, therefore, that it is theonlycommentary on theKārikāthat appears to understand the full scope and details of classical Sāṃkhya philosophy. Since its discovery has been comparatively recent—it was first carefully edited and studied...

      (pp. 271-288)

      The date and authorship of this commentary is unknown. It contains a good deal of material, however, from the commentaries already dealt with (namely, Paramārtha’s Chinese version, theSāṃkhyavṝtti, theSāṃkhyasaptativṛtti, and Gauḍapāda’sBhāṣya). P. Chakravarti points out, furthermore, that it appears to know of certain views mentioned only in theYuktidīpikā(that is, the discussion of seven types of action under SK 19 and the interpretation of the expression “kāraṇakāryavibhāga” under SK 15).¹ On the other hand, also according to Chakravarti, Vācaspati’sTattvakaumudiappears to presuppose theJayamaṇgalā, for Vacaspati describes and rejects an interpretation of the eight attainments...

      (pp. 289-290)

      If this commentary on Vyāsa’sYogasūtrabhāṣyashould prove finally to be an authentic commentary of the great Śaṃkarācārya (the Vedāntin), the work will add a fascinating, though puzzling, chapter both to the early history of Vedānta and the early history of Sāṃkhya-Yoga. More than anything else, it will show that what we have been calling Pātañjala-Sāṃkhya was an important component in the formulation of Advaita Vedānta philosophy. It might also render more likely the possibility that the Gauḍapāda of theSāṃkhyakārikābhāsyais the same as the early Advaitin Gauḍapāda of theMāṇḍūkyakārikāin the sense that there may have been...

      (pp. 291-300)

      As has already been discussed (see entries on theSuvarṇasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, Sāṃkhyasaptativṛttiand Gaudapada’sBhāṣya), our extant Matharavrtti has a common core of content with four other early commentaries on theSāṃkhyakārikā. Although for many years it was thought that theMāṭharavṛttimay have been the original upon which the other four were based, there is now a general consensus that our extantMāṭharavṛttiis the latest of the five commentaries and may be dated anywhere from the ninth century onward. The commentary contains quotations from the Puranas, appears to presuppose a much more sophisticated logic (based most likely on...

      (pp. 301-312)

      According to tradition, this famous interpreter of Indian philosophy was a Maithila Brahmin from the region of Bihar. He lived either in the middle of the ninth century (ca., 841) or toward the latter half of the tenth century (ca., 976). The reason for the discrepancy in date relates to a reference in one of Vācaspati’s own writings, namely, theNyāyasūclnibandha, in which Vācaspati reports that he composed the work in 898. If this latter date is calculated according to the Vikrama era (beginning in 58 B.G.E.), it becomes 841 of the Common Era. If the date is calculated according...

      (pp. 313-314)

      Bhojarāja, or Bhojadeva, who was, according to Frauwallner,¹ the king of Malawa in the middle of the eleventh century, wrote a commentary on theYogasūtraentitledRājamārtaṇḍa(King-Sun” or “Sun among Kings”). It is a clear exposition of the old Yogā philosophy, which does not, however, go much beyond the views of Vyāsa’sYogasūtrabhāṣya. J. H. Woods points out, interestingly (inThe Yoga-System, pp. xiii-xiv), that stanza 5 of the opening verses to this commentary contains the first reference in Sanskrit literature to the identity of the two Patañjalis, namely, the Patañjali of theMahābhāṣyaand the Patañjali of the...

      (pp. 315-320)

      Following the work of Vācaspati Miśra in the ninth or tenth century, there is a lacuna in the development of Sāṃkhya literature encompassing a period of several hundred years, i.e, from about 1000 through 1300 or 1400 of the Common Era. As Frauwallner has observed,¹ the creative period in the history of the Sāṃkhya had been in the first centuries of the Common Era with the work of Vārṣagaṇya, Vindhyavāsin, Mādhava, and so forth, and to some extent with the summary work of Īśvarakṛṣṇa. There had been vigorous polemics with Buddhists, Jains, and the followers of Nyaya-Vaisesika as can be...

      (pp. 321-326)

      The date and authorship of this commentary on theTattvasamāsaare unknown, but Chakravarti has argued, perhaps with some justification, that it is probably the oldest extant commentary on theTattvasamāsaand that both it and theTattvasamāsaare somewhat older than the Sāṃkhyasūtra and its commentaries.¹ The primary reason for suggesting an older date for theKramadīpikāis that both Vijñānabhiksu and Bhāvāganeśa appear to know the text. Bhāvāganeśa in hisTattvayāthārthyadipanaindicates in his introductory verses that he is following a gloss (vyākhyā) by Pañcaśikha, and in the course of his commentary he quotes three verses (see pp....

      (pp. 327-332)

      As indicated in the earlier entry on theTattvasamāsasūtra,nothing can be said about theSāmkhyasūtraapart from noting its traditional attribution to Kapila, which is obviously not the case, and that it first appears in theSāmkhyasūtravṛttiof Aniruddha some time in the fifteenth century. The only other reading of thesūtrasthemselves is to be found in Vijñānabhiksu’sSātṃkhyapravacanabhāṣyafrom the latter half of the sixteenth century, and, as Garbe has clearly demonstrated (in his critical edition ofSāṃkhyasūtravṛtti), Vijñānabhikṣu is dependent throughout on both Aniruddha’s reading and his interpretation of thesūtracollection.¹ There is no mention...

      (pp. 333-374)

      In his critical edition to Aniruddha’sSāṃkkyasūlravṛtti,Garbe suggests that Aniruddha was evidently familiar with theSarvadarśanasaṃgraha(from the middle of the fourteenth century) and clearly predated Vijñānabhikṣu (latter half of the sixteenth century). He, therefore, places Aniruddha about 1500 of the Common Era.¹ Garbe also calls attention to a report by R. G. Bhandarkar of a certain Aniruddha,² the son of Bhāvaśarman and grandson of Mahāsarman, born in 1464 of the Common Era and who composed at the age of thirty-one (or, in other words, in 1495) a commentary on the astronomical treatise Bhāsvatikaraṇa, by Śatananda. Garbe suspects that...

      (pp. 375-412)

      If it is legitimate to use the term “renaissance” with reference to these later Sāṃkhya traditions that focus on theTattvasamāsasūtraand theSāṃkhyasūtra, it is surely because of the work of Vijñānabhikṣu (and to a lesser extent his pupil, Bhāvāgaṇesa). In theKramadipikāand Aniruddha’s Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti, the interpretation of Sāṃkhya still very much followed along the older lines of the main tradition of theSāṃkhyakaṛikaand its commentaries, even though the occasions for theKramadipikāandSāṃkhyasūtravṛttiwere the emergence of the apparently recentsūtracollection. With Vijñanabhikṣu, however, new directions in the interpretation of the old Sanakhya are...

      (pp. 413-416)

      Bhāvāgaṇeśa or Gaṇeśa Dīkṣita was a direct disciple of Vijñānabhikṣu and can be dated, therefore, along with Vijñanabhikṣu in the latter half of the sixteenth century. HisTīkāon theTattvasamāsasūtra,entitledTattvayāthārthyadipana(“Illuminating the Complete Meaning of the Truth”), is probably the oldest commentary on theTattvasamāsa after Kramadipikā.

      The edition (E) used for the summary is that found in V.P. Dvivedi, editorSāmkhyasangraha(Varanasi: Ghowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Work No. 50, pp. 50-92)....

      (pp. 417-418)

      This commentator, also known as Mahādeva Sarasvatī or Vedāntin Mahādeva, lived in the latter part of the seventeenth century, according to Keith and others.¹ He was a disciple of Svayaṃprakāśa Tīrtha, according to a citation by F. E. Hall.² Although his commentary, entitledSāṃkhyasūtravṛttisāra, purports to be based on Aniruddha, Garbe discovered that almost all of the first two books have been lifted from theSāṃkhyapravacanābhaṣyaof Vijñānabhikṣu.³ The remainder is a paraphrase of Aniruddha. Garbe included a few extracts from Mahādeva Vedāntin’s commentary in his critical edition of AniruddhasSāṃkhyasūtravṛtti, but there is nothing of importance in this that...

      (pp. 419-420)

      This author, also known as Svayaṃprakāśa Muni or Yatīndra, is listed inA Descriptive Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscriptsin the Adyar Library, IX, as having lived in the latter part of the seventeenth century and as having composed a number of works on Vedānta. He also wrote, evidently, a fifty-verse booklet on the functioning of theguṇas,entitledGuṇatrayaviveka.The author appears to have been a devotee of Rama and to have been a pupil of Vāsudevendrayati

      The following summary of the booklet is based on its publication by V. Krishnamacharya in the Adyar Library Bulletin 24 (1960): 175-181....

      (pp. 421-428)

      Nārāyana Tīrtha, the author of theSāṃkhyacandrikāwas well versed not only in the Sāṃkhya-Yoga philosophy but also in the philosophical systems of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika school and the Vedanta. He belonged to the last part of the seventeenth century. The following summary is based on the edition ofSāṃkhyacandrikāby Dundhiraja Sastri Nyayacarya (Varanasi: Haridas Sankrit Series 132, 1977)....

      (pp. 429-430)

      Nagojī Bhaṭṭa, or Nāgeśa, lived in the first part of the eighteenth century, according to Keith¹ and others, and worked in the areas of philosophy of language, Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika, Vedānta, Yoga, and Sāṃkhya (see Potter,Bibliography of Indian Philosophies,2d Rev. ed. [Delhi; MotilalBanarsidass, 1983], pp. 327-328, for citations to his work).² HisLaghusāṃkhyaoṛttion theSāṃkhyasūtrais rightly characterized by Keith as a “mere imitation” of Vijñānabhiksu’sSāṃkhyapravacanabhāsya³. Because it contains nothing original, the text will not be summarized in this volume....

      (pp. 431-442)

      Because this author refers to the views of Mahādeva Punataṃkara who is likely to have flourished in 1710, it may be presumed that he composed his commentary after 1750.¹ Nothing else is known about him. In the six benedictory verses we find no information either about him or his teacher.

      The edition (E) used for this summary was prepared by Rama Sastri Bhandari and was published as Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series 54, Varanasi 1921....

      (pp. 443-444)

      A commentary on theTattvasamāsasūtra, called Saāṃikhyatattvavt vecana, is published in the Ghowkhamba Sanskrit Series No. 50,Sāṃkhyasangraha,edited by V.P. Dvivedi, pp. 1-49. Its author’s name is Siman anda, or Kṣemendra, and he was a Brahmin from Kānyakubja. About his date, we know nothing. Because Kṣemendra follows Vijñanabhiksu’s views on Sāṃkhya, he probably wrote after Vijñānabhikṣu. As a rough estimate we place this commentary somewhere in the eighteenth or nineteenth century, anywhere, in other words, between 1700 and 1900. In the following summary (based on theSāṃkhyasangrahaedition), attention is given primarily to the ordering of thesūtrasand...

      (pp. 445-446)

      This work appears inSāṃkhychyasangraha,pp. 93-104. Nothing is known about its author....

      (pp. 447-448)

      This commentary is published in theSāṃkhyasaṅgrahapp. 105-116. It does not number the varioussūtras,but they appear in the text in the following order:...

      (pp. 449-450)

      Nothing is known about this author beyond his name and the fact that he wrote a little text entitledSāṃkhyatattvapradipa,probably some time in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. The text is not a commentary. It is an independent manual that provides an overview of the Sāṃkhya based on theSāṃkhyakārikāas interpreted by Vācaspati Miśra in hisTattvakaumudi.It contains nothing original and, hence, will not be summarized. It does provide, however, a short and accurate account of theSāṃkhyakarikaand theTattvakaumudīand was probably used as a textbook by beginning students. It is published in the Chowkhamba...

      (pp. 451-458)

      The manuscript of Mudumba Narasimhasvamin’sSāṃkhyataruvasanta,a commentary on theSāṃkhyakārikā,is preserved in the Adyar Library, Madras (Descriptive Catalogues Vol. 8; s. no. 1OE). The author has shown remarkable originality in explaining some of the expressions of theSāṃkhyakārikā.He does not seem to follow any of the commentators of theSK,though in a few places he appears to regard the views of Vijñānabhiksu as highly authoritative. At the beginning we find the expression “Nṛsiṃhakārikābhāsyam,”which simply means “a bhāsya on theSāṃkhyakārikācomposed by one who is known as nṛsiṃha.” The word “nṛsiṃha” undoubtedly refers to the...

      (pp. 459-460)

      TheSāṃkhyatattvavilāsa(also known as theSāṃkhyavṛttiprakāśa) by Raghunātha Tarkavāgīśa, son of Śivarāma Gakravartin, is purportedly a commentary on the Sāṃkḥyakārikā, but only the introductory (upodghāta) portion of this commentary has been published (with a Sanskrit subcoinmcntary by Rāmesacandra Tarkatīrtha) (Calcutta: Metropolitan Publishing House, 1935; Calcutta Sanskrit Series No. 15). It was possibly composed some time in the nineteenth century. For the manuscripts of this text, see the Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Asiatic Society, Calcutta, and the Catalogue of Sanskrit Manuscripts of Calcutta Sanskrit College. The text has been referred to in the “Index to the Bibliography” by...

      (pp. 461-462)

      Devatīrtha Svāmin, also known as Kaṣṭhajīhva Svāmin, was a disciple of Vidyāraṇyatīrtha. He was patronized by the Mahārāja of Kāśī during his scholarly career. He died in 1852 at the age of eighty. His text, theSāṃkhyataraṅga,is a booklet containing a collection of the importantsūtrasof theSāṃkhyasūtrawith occasional brief observations of the author. In the introductory part there is a discussion of the word“atha.”Curiously enough, the author gives the meaning of its two component parts (letters), namely, “a” and “tha”as “puruṣa”and “prakṛti”respectively. Some verses from the Garbha Upanisad, have been quoted to show...

      (pp. 463-464)

      Tārānātha Tarkavācaspati worked in the middle of the nineteenth century. In addition to hisUpodghātaon Vācaspati’sTattvakaumudi,he published works on Nyāya and Vedānta.

      TheUpodghāta,as the title clearly indicates, is not a full commentary. It is only a series of introductory notes about theTattvakaumudi,possibly composed for the author’s students. It was first published in Varanasi in 1868; a second edition was issued in Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara in 1895.

      Ram Shankar Bhattacharya did not prepare a full summary of the work but, instead, calls attention to the following checklist of topics covered in the text:...

      (pp. 465-466)

      Narendranātha Tattvanidhi composed his commentary on theTattvasamāsasūtratoward the end of the nineteenth century. It is included inThe Sūṃkhya Philosophy,volume 11 of the Sacred Books of the Hindus, translated by Nandalal Sinha (Panini Office, 1915 but recently reprinted by the Oriental Books Reprint Corporation, New Delhi, 1979).

      As has been the case in the preceding summaries of theTattvasamāsasūtracommentaries, attention will be given primarily to the ordering of thesūtrasand the manner in which Narendra explains them differently from the others.

      (1) Now, hence, a summary regarding the truth (“atha atas tattve samāsaḥ”)—no other...

      (pp. 467-472)

      Śrī Bhāratī Yati, a disciple of Śrī Bodhāraṇya Yati, wrote hisTattvakaumudīvyākhyā,a commentary on theSāṃkhyatattvakaumudiof Vacaspati, in 1889. It was printed at the Jaina Prabhakara Press, Varanasi, in 1889 and published by Babu KauIesvarasimha Bookseller, Varanasi, the same year....

      (pp. 473-486)

      Pramathanatha Tarkabhūṣaṇa (1865-1941), son of Tārācaraṇatarkaratna, was a versatile scholar of very high rank. Equally proficient in literature, religious and social study(Smṛti), neo-Nyāya, Sāṃkhya, Mīmāṃsā, and Vedānta, he was, perhaps, most learned in Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta. He learnedSmṛtiunder Vireśvarasmṛtitīrtha, neo-Nyāya under Śivacandrasārvabhauma, Sāṃkhya under Hṛṣikeśāsastrī, and Mīmāṃā and Vedānta under Svāmi Viśuddhānanda—all outstanding teachers. Pramathanatha Tarkabhusana taughtsmṛtiand Indian philosophy at, among other institutions, Calcutta Sanskrit College, the University of Calcutta, and Banaras Hindu University. He retired from Banaras Hindu University in 1922 as Principal, College of Oriental Learning. In recognition of his superb scholarship...

      (pp. 487-500)

      This subcommentary was written in 1902 by M. M. Kṛṣṇanātha Nyāyapañcānana. He was a famous Bengali scholar, versed in various branches of learning, particularly in Nyāya, for which he earned the degrees Nyāyapañcānana, Nyāyaratna, and others, and the honorary title Mahāmahopādhyāya. He belonged to a village named Pūrvasthalī near Navadvīpa, in an area then noted as a great seat of learning.

      The subcommentary was a textbook for beginners in Sāṃkhya philosophy. Sāṃkhya at that time was understood to include only Iśvarakṛṣṇa’skārikāswith Vācaspati Miśra’s commentary, and perhaps Gauḍapāda’s commentary in addition. Vijñānabhikṣu’sSāṃkhyapravacanabhāṣya(on theSāṃkhyasūtra) andyogavārttika(on...

      (pp. 501-508)

      Hariprasāda’s commentary on theSāṃkhyasūtrasis based on theBhāṣyaof Vijñānabhikṣu and also quotes, in one or two places, Aniruddha’sVṛtti.Views summarized here are those either not found in theBhāṣyaor those especially held by the author in adducing arguments. The author is the disciple of a teacher named Ātmarāma who belonged to the order of the Udasina sect. The commentary was published in 1905 towards the end of the author’s I’Fetime....

      (pp. 509-520)

      Bālarāma Udāsīna, born in 1855, was a follower of the Udāsīna sect and studied Vedanta with Rāmamiśra Śāstrin. He went to Bengal to study Nyāya and lived, for last part of his life, in Varanasi. He composed a short Sanskrit commentary on theVyāsabhāsya-Tattvavaiśāradi,a Hindi commentary on theyogasūtras,and a few works on religious matters also (Śrautasarvasva,etc.).

      TheVidvattoṣiṇion Vacaspati’sTattvakaumudiwas composed by the commentator up to verse 33. The remaining part of the commentary (along with the last four paragraphs of the commentary on the 33rd verse)—which is obviously very brief—was composed...

      (pp. 521-544)

      Pañcanānatarkaratna, son of Nandalālakavi of Bhatpara, West Bengal, was born in 1865. A brilliant student of Śivacandrasārvabhauma and famous since his youth for his extraordinary erudition and native intelligence, he soon won recognition as a scholar of a very high order. He worked as a professor in a Bhatparacatuṣpāṭhiand later at Bangabasi College, Calcutta, and was for some time the Dean of the Faculty of Religious Learning at Banaras Hindu University. He was awarded the honorary title it “Mahāmakopādhyāya” by the then British Indian Government. He died in 1940. He published a number of books, translated into Bengali...

      (pp. 545-550)

      Kuñjavihāri Tarkasiddhānta (Bhaṭṭācārya), the second son of Rūpacandra Bhaṭṭācārya and Śāradā Devī, was born in Medinimandala, Dacca (now in Bangladesh). He studied Vyākarana, Nyāya, and Sāṃkhya from eminent scholars such as Gaṅgānārāyaṇa Cakravartī, Durgācaraṇa Sāṃkhyavedṃntatīrtha, Rāsamohāna Sārvabhauma, Kailāśacandra Śiromaṇi, and Vāmācaraṇa Bhaṭṭācārya. Having taught at different seminaries, he joined Government Sanskrit College, Calcutta, as a teacher of Nyāya and trained a number of eminent Naiyāyikas, of whom special mention may be made of Anantakumāra Nyayatarkatirtha and Heramba Tarkatīrtha. In 1933, the then British Indian Government conferred on him the honorary title “Mahāmahopadhyāya”.

      Among the numerous literary and scholarly works of...

      (pp. 551-558)

      This subcommentary was composed in Varanasi by Kṛṣṇavallabhācārya, a teacher of the Svāmi Nārāyana sect, in 1926. It is a running commentary on theTattvakaumudiand explains the expressions of the text in a very elaborate but lucid manner. The important views of the commentator are noted below....

      (pp. 559-562)

      Rājeśvara Śāstrin Drāviḍa, son of the well-known Vedāntic scholar, M.M. Lakṣmaṇa Śāstrin Drāviḍa, was a renowned traditional scholar of Nyāya, Vedānta, and ancient Indianpolitical science as well. Associated with many learned institutions, notably the Saṅga Veda Mahāvidyālaya and the All-India Kashiraj Trust of Varanasi, he was a professor in the Sanskrit University at Varanasifor a few years in the later part of his life. As well as the Sāṃkhyacommentary summarized below, he also composed a few works on Nyāyaand Vedānta.

      R.S. Drāviḍa’s commentary on theTattvakaumudlof Vācaspati was published in the Haridas Sanskrit Series in 1932. It is not...

      (pp. 563-576)

      Rāmeśacandra Tarkatīrtha was born in 1881 in the village of Suhilapura, adjacent to Tripura in the eastern part of Bengal. His father was Gandrakumāra and mother Guṇamayī, and he named the subcommentary in memory of his mother. In his student life he specialized in different branches of Indian philosophy and obtained highest degrees in Sāṇkhya, Vedānta, and Mīmāṃsā. We learn from the subcommentary that Rāmeśacandra’s teacher’s name was Raghunatha Tarkavāgīśa. S. N. Dasgupta was one of his students. The title Mahamahopadhyaya was conferred on him in 1944. He died in 1960.

      The subcommentary was published in 1935 while Rāmeśacandra was...

      (pp. 577-580)

      Kālīpada Tarkācārya was one of the most erudite traditional Sanskrit scholars in modern times. He specialized primarily inNyāya, especially Navyanyāya. He composed several works (texts, commentaries, and learned papers) on different systems of Indian philosophy. He was also known for his work in poetry. He served as Professor of Nyāya for many years in the Government Sanskrit College, Calcutta, and the honorary title “Mahamahopādhyaya” was conferred on him by the Government of India. He died about ten years ago.

      TheSāraprabhā, a commentary composed by Kālīpada Tarkācārya on Vijñānabhikṣu’sSāṃkhysāra,was published by Chhatra Pustakalaya, Calcutta, in 1930.

      It is...

      (pp. 581-590)

      Swāmi Hariharānanda Āraṇya, a Bengalisaṃnyāsin,lived from 1869 to 1947. He is the founder of Kapila Maṭha, located in Bihar, a monastic community claiming to maintain the tradition of Sāṃkhya and Yoga in modern India. Hariharānanda was a disciple of Swami Triloki Āraṇya, but nothing is known of this teacher or his tradition.

      Hariharānanda wrote a number of works onSāṃkhyayogain Bengali and Sanskrit. His best-known work in Bengali is the Kapilāśramiyapātañjalayogadarśana, which has been partly rendered into English by P.N. Mukerji under the title,The Toga Philosophy of Patañjali(Calcutta: University of Calcutta, 1963) with a foreword...

      (pp. 591-598)

      Harirāma Śukla was a professor of Saṃpūrṇānanda Sanskrit University, Varanasi, and was well known for his erudition in the field of Nyāya, which he studied with Rajeśvara Śāstrin Drāviḍa, the renowned scholar of Nyāya and Advaita Vedānta in modern times. He died in, about 1975.

      The commentary chiefly explains the expressions of theTattvakaumudiand discusses difficult points in detail. It has very little new to say. In a few places it criticizes the views of other commentators.

      The summary is prepared from the edition published in the Kashi Sanskrit Series no. 123 from the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi...

      (pp. 599-610)

      Pandit Śivanārāyana Sāstrin wrote this commentary on Vacaspati Miśra’sTattvakaumudiin the early decades of the twentieth century. It was published in 1940 in Bombay at the Nirnaya Sagar Press by Pandurang Jawaji. “E” refers to the edition....

      (pp. 611-612)

      Naraharinātha’sSāṃkhyavasantawas published by the Yogapracārṇī Sabhā in 1950, and it was composed, according to the last verse in the text, in 1946. The author appears to be a follower of the Natha school of Yoga. He was a disciple of Kṣipranātha (according to verse 74). The work is nothing but a version in thevasantatilakameter of theSāṃkhyakārikā.The text has six benedictory verses, and thereafter each verse of theSāṃkhyakārikāis restated in a separate verse. Interestingly, Naraharinatha includes in his rendering of the text the so-called missingkārikāsuggested by B. G. Tilak (reconstructed from...

      (pp. 613-614)

      The text calledAbhinavarājalakṣmipurports to be a commentary on theSāṃkhyakārikābut is really an expanded paraphrase of Vacaspati Miśra’sTattvakaumudi.The work was first written by Guruprasada Sastri and then revised for publication by Sītārāma Śāstrī. The text was published in Varanasi in 1953 along with a Hindi commentary calledBhāṣāṭikā.The work is only a paraphrase of Vācaspati....

      (pp. 615-616)

      The text calledSāṃkhyasūtrāṣyā,published by Brahmamuni himself in 1955 from the Vedānusandhānasādhana, Haridvara, is little more than a restatement of the view of Aniruddha and Vijñānabhikṣu on theSāṃkhyasūtra.The author is evidently a follower of Swami Dayānanda Sarasvatī....

      (pp. 617-618)

      These short independent works are included in the collectionSāṃkhyasaṅgraha,Varanasi : Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, 1969, on pages 90-95, 114-124, 125-144 respectively. Although the authors’ names are known for the first two, nothing more can be said about them. Nothing at all is known about the date or authorship of theSāṃkhyaparibhāṣā.

      TheSāṃkhyatattvapradipikāof Keśava is a simple summary presentation of the Sāṃkhya system along the lines of Vijñānabhikṣu.

      TheTattvamīmāṃsāof Kṛṣṇa Miśra provides a short resumé of theSaṃkhyakārikā.It stresses that everyone naturally searches for satisfaction, and in order to find satisfaction, one must remove...

      (pp. 619-620)

      TheSāṃkhyasiddhāntaparāmarśais a booklet containing 253 verses in Āryā meter with occasional notes by its author, M. V. Upādhyāya. Upādhyāya has also composed a commentary in verse on theBrahmasūtra,arguing that Sāṃkhya is in full harmony with the Vedas. The text was published in 1972 by the Superintendent, Avadhūtavidvanmaṇḍala, Baroda....

      (pp. 621-622)

      The author is currently professor of Sanskrit at Saṃpūrṇānanda Sanskrit University, Varanasi. His text,Sāṃkhyarahasya,was published in Varanasi in 1966. It contains 102 verses interspersed with an autocommentary (svopajña) entitled“Prakāsa.”The text follows the order of theSāṃkhyakārikāand on all important points follows the interpretation of Vacaspati Miśra’sTattvakaumadi....

  6. NOTES
    (pp. 623-660)
  7. INDEX
    (pp. 661-674)
  8. Back Matter
    (pp. 675-675)