365bet娱乐

904
Sankarac膩rya & even the followers of vedic religion like Devala
etc. should follow it, is a discouraging fact.
But from the point of belief in the doctrine Brahman, Devala
is quite close to Sankar膩c膩rya. Moreover, Sankar膩c膩ry} }, himself
admits that the sankhya philosophy is quite close to the vedic
darsana (which he was expounding) & was, therefore, even admitted
1 by some sistas like Devala etc. But yet there is a fundamental
difference between Sankar膩c膩rya & the classical sankhya. The classi-
cal sankhya philosophy is dualistic. It admits two separate princi-
ples namely prakrti & purusa. The pre-karika sankhya, (expounded
in Mahabharata, Caraka, Buddhacarita etc.) maintains the separate
existence of two principles of prakrti & purusa, though it admits
the doctrine of Brahman. While Sankar膩c膩rya admits only one
principle namely Brahman from the transcendental point of view.
The Brahman is the only principle from which the creation,
maintenance & destruction of the entire world follows. The Brahman
is not only the efficient but also material cause of the world 4.
Here Devala differs from Sankaracarya. Though admitting the
doctrine of Brahman, he does not maintain it to be source or
material cause of the world, Prakrti is admitted to be material
cause of the world. Sankaracarya has intentionally rebuked
particularly this aspect of Devala's exposition that he believed
in the pradhanakaranavada.
F
Another difference, which is a corollary of the above fundamen-
tal disagreement, is the admittance of doctrine of purusarthav膩da.
Devala, like the sankhyas, believes in two separate principles