Essay name: Devala-smriti (critical study)
Author:
Mukund Lalji Wadekar
Affiliation: Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda / Department of Sanskrit Pali and Prakrit
This essay represents an English study of the Devala-smriti鈥攁n ancient text attributed to sage Devala classified as belonging to the Dharma-Shastra branch of Indian literature which encompasses jurisprudence and religious law. This study deals with the reconstructed text of the Devala-smriti based on surviving references, emphasizing Devala鈥檚 unique viewpoints on social, religious, and philosophical aspects, particularly the Sankhya and Yoga philosophies.
Chapter 10 - Philosophical aspect of the Devalasmriti
63 (of 75)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
896
On the basis of such resemblances, he advocates that Devala
had before him the extant sankhyasutra work & is indebted to it.
He is not ready to accept the view that the sankhyasutra work
itself has taken those sutras from the work of Devala. He is also
not prepared to believe that Devala is indebted to some other
ancient lost sankhya works.
Devala explicitly mentions his indebtedness to the Tantra
work of sankhya and this work, Pandita Udayavira Shastri maintains,
is the sastitantra only. This sastitantra is the extant sankhya-
sutra, work in six adhy膩yas. This is the most peculiar view of the
above author, explained by him in his book.
The Sankhyakarika, which is generally accepted to be the most
ancient extant sankhya-work, is advocated to be a work, later than
the extant sankhyasutra & hence he is not ready to accept the view
of Devala's indebtedness to the Sankhyakarika, because he places
Devala in a period much earlier than that of Isvarakrsna 路
He also argues that there is no passage of Devala, that has
any kind of similarity with the Sankhyakarika, while such
relation of resemblance is too close in case of the sankhyasutra &
Tattvas amasa, with the sutras of Devala.
HIS CONCLUSION:
To sum pup, he tries to prove that Devala is earlier to
the Sankhyakarika & is not indebted to it in any way & that
Devala is very much indebted to the sankhyasutra & Tattvasam膩sa,
