365bet娱乐

[Full title: (B) (1) Devala鈥檚 indebtedness to the works on Sankhya and Yoga].

INTRODUCTORY鈥擳he various tenets of Sankhya & Yoga systems have been dealt with by Devala. Even Sankaracarya, (Brahma-sutra 1/4/28) explicitly 1 mentions that the Dharmasutrakaras like Devala etc. accepted the pradhanakaranavada (doctrine of prakrti being the cause of } the world) in their treatises, Several distinctive philosophical features, as found in the exposition of Sankhya & Yoga by Devala, have been dealt with in the previous section. It is now necessary to study how far Devala is indebted to the extant Sankhya & Yoga works. It is the most pertinent questions, whether Devala has based his doctrines upon the extant Sankhya & Yoga works or he is indebted to ancient works, prior to extant ones. POINTS OF AGREEMENT dome Many ancient works on Sankhya & Yoga philosophy have been completely lost. The sankhyakarika, the sankhyasutra & the Tattvasamasa are the most important extant sankhya works, that contain several points of agreement both verbal & doctrinal with the sutras of Devala. Such points of parity between Devala & the sankhyakarika, the sankhyasutra & the Tattvasamasa sutra are noted here for the comparative study.

Devala (1) ....Eka Mulaprakrtih Sarvapurvika prakrtih (2) Sapta prakrtivikrtayah Mahadahankarau 2213 2211 2258 - 2212 TABLE NO. 13 Sankhyakarika Mulaprakrtiravikrtih - 3a Mahadadyah prakrtivikrtayah Sapta 3b Pancatanmatrani 2214 - (3) Sodasa vikarah 2215 (4) Trayodasa Karanani -2218 (5) Tesam trinyantahkaranani 2219 (6) Dasa bahiskaranani -2220 (7) Panca Vayuvi搂esah - 2222 (8) Trayo gunah -2223 O (9) Trini pramanani -2227 (10) Trividham duhkham -2228 (11) Caturvidhah pratyayava(sa)rgah -2229 (12) Tatha dvividhah sargah-2230 Soda-sakastu vikarah 3c Karanam trayodasavidham -32 Antahkaranam trividham 33 Dasadha bahyam 33 ..Vayavah Panca ....gunah /12-13 - 29 Trividham pramanam -4 Duhkhatrayabhighatat 1 Esa pratyayasarago Viparyayasaktitustisiddhyakhyah -46 Dvividhah pravartate sargah

- 2 Devala 19) Caksuha srotraghranajihvatvaco buddhindriyani -2242 20) Vagpanipada-payupas thah Karmendriyani -2244 21) Rupasabdagandharasasparsastesamarthah -2243 22) Bhasanam Kriya gamanam utsarga ananda esam Karmani -2245 23) Vayvagnyabakasaprthivyo 24) 25) 26) bhutavisesah -2246 Adhyavasayalaksano mahan ....2251 Abhimanalaksanohankarah ....2252 Sattamatralaksanani Sankhyakarika Buddhindriyani caksuh srotra ghranarasanatvagakhani -26 Vagpanipadapayupas thah Karmendriyanyahuh -26 Sabdadisu pancanam .28 Pancavisesavisesavisayani ...34 Vacanadanaviharanotsargananda-sca pancanam -28 Tanmatranyavisesas te bhyo bhutani panca pancabhyah -38 Adhyavasayo buddhih .....23 Abhimano'hankarah ....24 Tanmatranyavi'sesah ....38 27) tanmatrani -2253 Sankalpalaksanam Manah/2256 Ubhayatmakamatra Manah Sankalpakam .....27 28) Prakrtermahanutpadyate/Mahato 'hankarah/ Prakrtermahamstato 'hankarastasmad Ahamkarat tanmatranindriyani ca/ Tanmatrebhyo Visesa ganasca sodasakah/ Tasmadapi soda'sakat pancabhvah.

REMARKS: 895 The comparative account about the similarity between Devalasutras & the above three extant sankhya works, would suggest at least the following two facts, (1) Devala may be indebted to the above extant sankhya works or (2) Devala & all the above three sankhya works may be indebted to some other ancient & prior but lost sankhya works, which may be the source of all of them & thus the occurrence of identical matter can be explicable. Of the above two facts, the first one is not acceptable, as (1) it has been previously emphasized that though there are several points of agreement between Devala & the extant sankhya works, there are various points of disagreement also between the two, which definitely suggest that the later works are not the basis of Devala-sutras. Moreover, Devala also like the sankhyakarika, explicitly mentions his indebtedness to the ancient, inscrutable & voluminous sankhyayoga treatises (Tantras), (2210). OPINION OF PANDITA UDAYAVIRA SHASTRI : 3 Pandita Udayavira Shastri ³ has given great importance to some of the passages of Devala to solve the chronological problems, regarding the extant sankhya works. He has pointed out that some of the sutras of Devala are identical with those of the Tattvasamasa & the sankhyasutra, while there are some other sutras of Devala, which are very close to the sankhyasutra & the Tattvas amas a though the words are slightly different.

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 sankhyasutra, work in six adhyayas. 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 & Tattvasamasa,

897 which he had before him, while writing the said passages. But the Sankhyasutra alone is the earliest extant sankhya work to which Devala is heavily indebted. CRITICISM: (1) The above view of the author mainly rests upon the presumption of the priority of the sankhyasutra to the Sankhyakarika. This view is not generally accepted by the scholars. Most of the Western & Indian scholars, maintain the Sankhyakarika to be the 4 earliest extant sankhya work. Prof.Dasgupta* believes the sankhya- sutras to be "probably written sometimes after 14th century". Prof.V.V.Sovani remarks that the Tattvasamasa is a work "older than 7th century A.D.". (2) The argument from parity is not a solid proof for proving the priority or posterity of any work. The similarity may be due to some common source. Similarity, there are also some distinct conflicting views, which may on the same standpoint, suggest that the other work is not the basis of it. (3) The view of Pandita Udayavira Shastri that there is no passage of Devala, which can be shown to have any kind of resemblance wwwww with the Sankhyakarika is quite baseless. The comparative statement about Devala & the Sankhyakarika, mentioned previously (Table No.13) can disprove this view of his. (4) It is improper to deny any independent earlier source, being the basis of the sutras of Devala, the sankhyasutras & the

898 & the Tattvas amas asutras, because there is no proof to prove that Devala alone is basis of the Sankhyasutra & the Tattvasamas a or the otherwise. Some ancient lost work, being the basis of all of them is quite presumable. Devala has admitted his indebtedness to the Tantras of Sankhya-Yoga (2210). (5) It was explained in the previous part, how some of the theories & doctrines of exposition of Devala, have no parallel in the extant works, while some tenets are quite distinct & conflicting with the extant Sankhya works. Hence Devala cannot be said to be indebted to the extant Sankhya works. DEVALA'S INDEBTEDNESS : In the last chapter, the author himself admits his indebtedness to the ancient, profound & extensive Sankhyayoga Tantras for his exposition of Sankhya & Yoga. This statement of Devala (2210) is very important from various points of view. IMPLICATIONS : It follows from the statement of Devala that (1) Devala had before him many (not one, or two, but plural indicates many) Tantras, treating both Sankhya & Yoga philosophy. They were written by ancient scholars & sages. They were voluminous, inscrutable & based upon logic & convention. They were probably containing treatment of both Sankhya & Yoga, without any distinct discrimination. Devala also followed the same pattern. The Tantras were very extensive, hence Devala has abridged & briefly mentioned them in his treatise.

899 (2) None of the extant Sankhya works (viz. the Sankhyakarika the Sankhyasutra & the Tattvasamasa) have been traditionally accepted to be the Tantra works of Sankhya. On the other hand, there are some evidences 6 to believe that there were voluminous & instruta uta -ble treatises on Sankhyayoga (as Devala, Sankhyakarika, Sankaracarya etc. mention), which were called Tantras. It can also be maintained that even Devala, Isvarakrsna & Sankaracarya etc. had access to such ancient works. f (3) Devala does not intend to refer to the extant Sankhya works. These cannot be described to be 'Visalani gambhirani tantrani' (Reconstructed Text Sr.2210). The exposition of Yoga is also not in accordance with the extant Yogasutra. There is no sutra of Devala that is identical with that of the Yogasutra. The definitions & explanations of various yogic terms are not in conformity with the extant Yogasutra. This was explained elaborately in the previous section. CONCLUSION: Devala is not all indebted to the extant works on Sankhya & Yoga. His exposition is based upon the ancient, voluminous & instrutable treatises (known as Tantras) of Sankhya-yoga (as he himself has explicitly admitted (2210)).

--REFERENCES 300 釣� Sa ca devaladibhih kaisciddharmasutrakaraih svagranthesvasritah/ tena tatpratisedhe yano'tiva krto nanvadikaranavadapratisedhe 2. Cf.Table No.13. www Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya (1/4/28). 3. Cf.Sankhya Darasanaka Itihasa, p.209. 4. A Hist. of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1, p.222. 5. 6. The Critical Study of Sankhya System, p.9. I. Brhaccaivamidam sastramityahurviduso janah / 鈥� Mbh.Santi.307/46 (Critical edition 12/295/44) Sankhyam visalam paramam puranam / 301/114 Mbh.Santi (Critical edition 12/290/109) Sankhyam ca yogam ca sanatane dve / Mbh.Santi.349/73 (Critical edition 12/337/68) II. Sastitantranyathaikaikamesam nanavidham mune / Ahirbudhnya Sam.XII/30. Visnusankalparupam ca mahadyoganus as anam / Ahirbudhnya Sam.XII/31-38. III. Etatpavitramagryam munirasuraye 'nukampaya pradadau / asurirapi pancasikhaya tena ca bahudha krtam tantram / Sisyaparamparaya" gatamisvarakors nena caitadaryabhih / Sanksiptamaryamatina samyag visnaya siddhantam //

901 Saptatyam kila ye'rthaste'rthah krtsnasya sastitantrasya / akhyayika virahitah paravadavivarjitascapi // Sankhyakarika 70-72. .... IV. Tantrasya ca brhanmurterdarpanasankrantamiva bimbam / Sankhyakarika Last additional verse read by Mathara. V. Pancasikhena munina bahudha krtam tantram sastitantrakhyam sastikhandam krtamiti / Tatraiva hi sastirarthah vyakhyatah/ the Jayamangala on Sankhyakarika 70. VI. Tattvam jijnasamanaya viprayasurarye munih / Yaduvaca mahattantram duhkhatrayanivrttaye / ia na tasyadhigamah sakyah kartum varsastairapi. // Yuktidipika, p.l. VII. Tatha coktam / Adividvannirmanacittamadhisthaya Karunyad bhagavan paramarsirasuraye jijnasamanaya tantram provaca / T Vyasa'e com. on Yogasutra I/25. 1 VIII. Smrtisca tantrakhya paramarsipranita sistaparigrhita Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya (II/1/1). - ..Mahajanaparigrhitani mahanti sankhyaditantrani samayagdarsanapadesena pravrttanyupalabhya.. Brahmasutra Shankarabhashya (II/2/1). 鈥�