365bet娱乐

D. DEVALA HIS DATE鈥擬any perplexing problems arise, while determining the dates of most of the authors & works of ancient Sanskrit literature. The date of Devala & the present reconstructed text is also not exempt from such perplexing problems & controversies. Here, an attempt is made to determine the date of Devala, with the help external & internal evidences. The problem of the date of some of the present reconstructed text will be separately dealt with in the next chapter. OPINIONS OF SCHOLARS ABOUT THE DATE OF DEVALA : 1 (1) Pandita Udayavira Shastri has tried to fix the date of Devala. His arguments are briefly mentioned below: 2 (i) Devala is mentioned in the traditional list of Sankhya teachers in the Matharavrtti. The words of Mathara suggest that Devala was very much earlier than Isvarakrsna. Many other Sankhyacaryas are believed to have flourished between Devala. & Isvarakrsna, on the basis of the word prabhrti, used by Mathara in his commentary. (ii) Devala is frequently mentioned in the Mahabharata, where his relation with the Sankhya philosophy is quite evident. 1 (iii) There is no quotation of Devala, that has any kind of similarity with the Sankhya-karika, according to him; while } he has pointed out that many sutras of Devala, are similar to } or even identical with those of the Sankhyasutra & the Tattvas amasa.

58 He believes that Devala had these two works before him. He arrives 3 at the conclusion that Devala was a Sankhyacarya, of a period, quite earlier than that of Isvarakrsna. He was much earlier than the date of the Mahabharata war 4 (2) Referring to the above view of Pandita Udayavira Shastri of placing Devala, in a period, "much earlier before second century B.C.娄 Dr.T.G.Mainkar 5 regards it to be "a view, which appears as hardly convincing". He further adds, "Devala & Isvarakrsna appear. to have flourished in time quite close to each other's & it would be too much to regard as many centuries, having elapsed between the two, on the strength of the remark from Mathara". He also remarks, "Not only the list as seen in the Matharavrtti, is rather curious, but the word 'prabhrti' even when taken with the absence of Isvarakrsna, indeed cannot suggest any wide chronological gap". 6 (3) Dr. Hara Dutt Sharma & (4) Dr. Vrajamohana Chaturvedi opine that Mathara's quotation can only establish Devala's priority to isvarakrsna & nothing else. 1 i i 7 } It is clear that all the above scholars agree upon the point that Devala was earlier than Isvarakrsna (about 200 A.D. 8 Mm. P. V.Kane³, however, is of the opinion that Devaladharmasutra was not only earlier than Sankaracarya, but was also regarded as early as (if not earlier than), the sutras based purely on logic or the Atomic Theory". 10 For the solution of the problem of date of Devala, some external & internal evidences are given below : 1 A

EXTERNAL EVIDENCES: 591 anesvarall (1) Devala is frequently quoted & referred to by Vijnanesvara (1080 A.D./1100 A.D.), Laksmidhara (1100 A.D./1130 A.D.), Apararka (1100 A.D./1130 A.D.), Jimutavahana (1100 A.D./1150 A.D.), Ballalasena (1158 A.D./1183 A.D.), Hemadri (1260 A.D./1270 A.D.), Madhava (1300 A.D./1386 A.D.) & most of the other later digest-writers & commentators. Most of them have accepted Devala to be one of the most prominent Smrtikaras. This clearly indicates that Devala was definitely earlier than 11th century A.D. (2) Sankaracarya refers to Devala in his commentary on the 12 Brahmasutras & states that some dharmasutrakaras, like Devala etc. accepted in their own treatises, the doctrine of pradhana, being the cause of the world. This remark undoubtedly proves that the work of Devala, containing the exposition of Sankhya tenets was known at least to the reversed Sankaracarya & hence was definitely earlier than he, who is generally believed to have flourished in the 8th century A.D. 12 There is also another implication of the remarks of Sankaracarya. The Sutrakara & Sankaracarya had to take great pains in refuting the pradhanakaranavada; as some dharmasutrakaras like Devala, accepted it in their own treatises; No such special effort was necessary for refuting the anukaranavada; as it was not so accepted by them. These words of Sankaracarya imply that even the Atomic theory was there before Devala & others, they neglected it & gave importance to the pradhanakaranavada. Thus the remarks of Sankaracarya indirectly imply that Devala, was later than the founders of Nyaya & Vaisesika schools 13 but 拢 du 4

60 (3) Devala is mentioned in the list of Sankhyacaryas, given by Mathara in his commentary on Sankhya-karika. The statement 14 of Mathara distinctly exhibits the priority of Devala to Isvarakrsna (about 200 A.D.). 15 (4) Devala is frequently mentioned in the Mahabharata. He W is described there as a Sankhyacarya, the expounder of Sankhya knowledge & also as a great yogin, possessing miraculous 16 powers of Yoga. Prof. Winternitz places the present Mahabharata between 400 B.C. to 400 A.D. Devala was a famous personality at least during the period of the Mahabharata. Probably a work on Dharma, embodying the doctrine of Sankhya & Yoga philosophy was also ascribed to the same renowned personality. INTERNAL EVIDENCES: : 17 The moksa prakarana (fifth) of the third adhyaya of the present reconstructed text reflects upon the philosophical speculations of the author. The exposition of the Sankhya & Yoga doctrines is to be found in it. It is noteworthy that the author admits his indebtedness to many voluminous & recondite Tantraworks of Sankhya & Yoga for his exposition of the same in the above portion. This distinctly points out that his exposition is not based upon the Sankhyakarika, (which also admits like Devala, its indebtedness to some ancient Tantra 18), 18), nor upon the extant Sankhyasutras or the Tattvasamasa. These three extant Sankhya-workscan never be admitted to be 'Visalani gambhirani tantrani'. Therefore, Devala is earlier than the earliest extant Sankhya work, namely, the Sankhya-karika (about 200 A.D.). 1 i }

19 The opinion of Pandita Udayavira Shastri that Devala is earlier than the Sankhyakarika is quite proper, but his view zaznal 61 that Devala is indebted to the extant Sankhyasutra & the Tattvas amasa is not acceptable; as Devala has declared, as noted previously, his indebtedness to the ancient, voluminous & recondite Tantras of Sankhya & Yoga & not to the extant sutras. The above internal evidence is also corroborated by the external evidence (No.4), about reference to Devala in the Matharavrtti, suggesting Devala to be earlier than Isvarakrsna. (2) Moreover, the elucidation of Yoga-tenets is also based upon the ancient works of Sankhya-yoga. It is not in accordance with the extant Yogasutra of Patanjali. The definitions & explanations of numerous terms of Yoga, do not exhibit any influence of the Yogasutra on Devala. Hence Devala is earlier than the extant Yogasutra of Patanjali 20 (147 B.C. to 400 A.D.). 21 (3) Though Devala expounds the Sankhya & Yoga philosophy, he describes the Brahman as the ultimate state to be reached. The Sankhyakarika & the Yogasutra (and other traditional extant works on Sankhya & Yoga systems) do not admit the above doctrine. While the expositions of Sankhya in the Caraka (Sarira, I.154/155, V.21,V.34) & the Buddhacarita of Asvaghosa (XII.65) admit like Devala that the ultimate state to be reached, is Brahman. This fact, further, indicates that the exposition of Devala is not in conformity with the traditional Sankhya & Yoga philosophy, as found in their extant works, but is based upon some ancient works of those systems, which accepted the Brahman as the ultimate reality, though not the material cause of the world. 22 [

62: CONCLUSION: On the basis of the above evidences, it can be maintained that Devala, the author of the present work on Dharma, flourished in a period, earlier than that of the Sankhya-karika of Isvara-krsna (200 A.D.), & the Yogasutra of Patanjali (between 150 B.C. to 400 A.D.). i 1 1 t

17 REFERENCES 1) Sankhya Darsanaka Itihasa pp. 211-213. 2) Kapiladasurina praptam...../ Tatah pancasikhena, tasmad bhargavolukavalmikiharitadevalaprabhrtinagatam/ Tatastebhya Isvarakrs nena praptam// - 63 3) 1 Matharavrtti on Sankhyakarika 71,p.84 Ina saba pramanomse yaha niscita hota haim, ki devala isvarakrsnaki apeksa atyanta pracina acarya tha/ 鈫� Sankhya Darsanaka Itihasa, p. 212-213. 4) Devalaka yaha samayanirdes a sarvatha asuddha hai, vaha mahabharata yuddhakalase bhi paryapta pracina hai// Ibid., p.505. 5) Sankhyakarika of Isvarakrsna, Intro., p.19. 6) Sankhyakarika, Intro. p.19. 7) Isase kevala itana hi jnata hota hai, ki devala sankhyake eka acarya the, jo Isvarakrsnake pahile ho cuke them/ Sankhyakarika, Intro.p.44. Prof. S.Dasgupta gives the date of the Sankhyakarika, as about 8) - 200 A.D. Cf. A Hist. of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p.212. 1 1 su 9) History of Dharmashastra , Vol. I, Part I, p.280. $

10) 64 "The Nyaya existed in some form as early as the 4th century B.C....... Some of the present sutras were written sometime in 2nd century A.D.". "The Vaisesika sutras are probably >>pre-buddhistic". "It seems to me to be perfectly certain that the Vaisesikasutras were written before Caraka (80 A.D.). Cf.A Hist.of Indian Philosophy of Prof.S.Dasgupta, Vol. I, pp. 279-80. 11) Dates as given by Mm.P.V.Kane Table, pp.XIV-XV. C History of Dharmashastra Vol. V, Part II, Chronological 12) "Iks aternas abdam" ityarabhya pradhanakaranavadah sutraireva 1 punah punaras ankya nirakrtah/. ...........sa ca karyakaranananyatvabhyupagamat pratyas anno vedantavadasya devalaprabhrtibhisca kaisciddharmasutrakaraih svagranthes vasritah/ Tena tatpratisedhe yatno'tiva krto nanvadikaranavade/ Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya , I.4.28. 13) Cf.n. 10 above for dates. 14) Cf.n.2 above. 15) Cr.Part I, Sect. I, Chapter II-B. 16) "According to this, the Mahabharata cannot have received its present form, earlier than the 4th century B.C. & not later than the 4th century A.D." Prof. M.Winternitz A Hist. of Indian Literature, Trans. by S. Ketkar, Vol. I, p.465.

17) Reconstructed Text , Sr.No.2210. 18) 鈥� " Tena ca bahudha krtam tantram// Sankhyakarika 70 65 Saptatyam kila ye'rthasterthah krtsnasya sastitantrasya/ akhyayikavirahitah paravadavivarjitascapi// Sankhyakarika 72 19) Cf.Sankhya Darsanaka Itihasa, pp.211-213. 20) Patanjali's Yogasutra is not earlier than 147 B.C., but is earlier than Vyasa (400 A.D.), who commented upon them. 21) Reconstructed Text , Sr.no.2473. $ Cf.Prof.S.Dasgupta A Hist. of Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 212. 22) Cf.Part III, Chapter VI, Sect. 1-6 for details. 1 1 i }