English
§ The Sdnkhya philosophy is, nevertheless, ascribed, by indi- genous tradition, to Kapila,|| the putative author of the atheistic sentences, the Sdnkhya-siitra] and Tattwa-samdsa ; though the taken to indicate, as compared with the plural, an inferior degree of respect. But Sanandana, though dignified with the title of dchérya, is yet spoken of, by Kapila, in the singular number. Mahddeva’s words are: qafna@ caa- aqaa ataanatafa eaqufa | It may, however, be doubted whether the use, in Sanskrit, of the pluralis majestaticus be of any antiquity, not- withstanding Sdyana A‘chirya’s opinion to the contrary. See Professor Wilson’s Translation of the Rig.veda, Vol. I., p. 201, foot-note. * Sce note at p. 15, infra. ; t See the same note. } XIL., 7895. At XII., 7886, of the same work, it is said : aa: afr orgqe acafe ssataa! awa aa Bay faarcafa fe waH ‘I can imagine that he whom the Sankhyas call Kapila, the mighty sage, the patriarch, is, in person, under this form, exciting our admiration.’ Such is the unmistakable sense of the couplet ; and so thinks Nilakantha Chaturdhara: 9 afer! aa weftarga 1 afqaarg aaa | Yet Professor Wilson understands the meaning to be, that Panchas‘ikha is here “named .... Kapila.” Sdukhya-kdrikdé, p. 190, Dr. Weber repeats this mistake; “als auch Kapila heisst.”” Indische Studien, Vol. I., p. 433. § Jauaka, chieftain .of Mithila, and disciple of Panchas‘ikha, says: VUUCSIUAY CEU Fawrat | fra: gefaats fire: Gcagaa? I XIL, 11875. || In only a single text that I know of, is the Sinkhya imputed to S‘iva: Mahdbhdrata, XII., 10388. At the same place, the Yoga also is said to have originated with this divinity. §] Swapnes’wara, acquainted as he was with the aphorisms of Panchas‘ikha, attributes to him the Séukhya-sitra also. He accounts for its bearing the title of Képila, by the circumstance that Kapila initiated the Saukhya tradi- tion as set forth in these aphorisms. By way of illustration, he adduces the Cc 10 accuracy of this assignment rests, it seems probable, on no better evidence than the fact, that such treatises of atheism as existed prior to those attributed to Kapila, being superseded by his own more developed, or less incongruous, enunciations, were con- signed, at an early period, to oblivion. But it does not seem imperative to include, among these ancient productions, the works of Panchas‘ikha also.* Even conceding that Panchas’ikha, conformably to the ordinary ac- count of him, was a disciple of A/’suri,t who is, in turn, said to have studied under Kapila ;t yet the measure of a scholastic notorious appropriation to Manu, of the code of laws set forth by Bhrigu. His meaning is, that Kapila only propounded the matter of the Sénkhya- sttra, whose present shape is due to Panchas‘ikha. He may, then, be sup- posed to set to the account of humility, the absence from Panchas‘ikha’s name, in the Séakhya Aphorisms, of the honorific title of A’chdrya. Against this it might be argued, that a saint so lowly would be likely to mention, at least a few times, the name of the leading rabbi of his school. Yet, on the contrary, be refrains from all mention of Kapila, while he twice speaks of himself. But, in justice to Swapnes'wara, it should be added that he gives what is repeated above, as nothing butrumour. His words are: Talay: Gaare wectfaeu) afvafafa afetee aA- erase wanmsieagiay wy saTey | * Colebrooke judges otherwise. "Speaking of the Sdnkhya-sitra, he says: “It is, avowedly, not the earliest treatise on this branch of philosophy: since it contains references to former authorities, for particulars which are {but briefly hinted in the sutras; and it quotes some by name, and, among them, Panchas‘ikha, the disciple of the reputed author’s pupil: an anachron- ism which appears decisive.”” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 232. { Mahébhérata, XII, 7890, 7895. Elsewhere, Panchasikha is spoken of as having been instructed, with Jaigishavya, by Kapila himself, Kdrma- purdna, first section, chapter 9, s‘loka 119. See, also, the note at the foot of page 16, infra. ft Bhdgaveta-purdna, I., 3, 11. Also; wifefagra faarefanafigra HTWUITS Haas WaCEts faeaearata aa Gara Vydsa: Pd- tanjala-bhdshya, I., 25. Notice will be taken, in a subsequent page, of the discrepant explanations of the term édi-vidwdn, in this passage. But the commentators are unanimous in understanding, by paramarshi, Kapila, 11 descent has no essential correspondence to that of a natural ge- neration. More especially, the position that Kapila takes ac- count of his own literary successor at the second remove, may be granted to offer but little violence to probability, if we simply suppose that the sage originally disseminated his tenets orally, and that they had undergone modification at the hands of sectaries from his proper school, before he committed them to a written form.* Panchas'ikha is known, by scanty fragments, as the author of a collection of philosophical aphorisms.t One other perform- * As on ungrateful alternative to silence, I have thus attempted to reduce to harmony, materials, in themselves, at first appearance, rather intractable ; but which present, it may be, a distorted reflex of historical verity. As the first step in dealing rationally with the mind-born sons of Brahmi, we must consider them as brethren, not as brothers. But, rather than depart, in favour of common sense, from the strictest letter of the theogo- nies, I have found the pandits disposed to fall back on their grand solution of all difficulties as to time, space, and individuals, the transparently indolent dogma of cyclical renovations of mundane events. These iterations admit- ting of an indefinite number of changes as to particulars, any body may, at last, be every body; and it thus becomes a very easy mutter to make light of ordinary chronological sequence. tA single one of them is given, as such, in Vyiisa’s Pédtanjala-bhdshya, L, 3: taaq zw Taraca aural Kshemiananda, in his notes on the Tattwa-samasa, twice quotes this as a sitra ; and Vachaspati Mis’ra, Vijnina Bhikshu, and Nagoji Bhatta, consent in assigning it to Panchas’ikha, In Vyfso’s Pdtanjale-bhéshya we find, at IL, 13; Wea: BFT: safc. BIT BRAT FRPW AIRING! Raq gw fe a aeycia qaraqaratara: Sasgyq~rrasd afcufa | Of this passage, which is un- characterised, by Vyasa, except as being by Panchas‘ikha, the _ Sdnkhya- tattwa-kaumudé cites the words @ei BRT: Sarcert: BIITAY: \ Swap- nes‘wara, in his annotations on the Kaumudi, still dissecting, says that the first three of these words form one aphorism, and the remaining word, another. So much for Panchas‘ikha’s sitras ; and it may be questioned whether c 2 w 12 ance, if not two, is likewise imputed to him ; and he, perhaps, any more samples of them are forthcoming, notwithstanding Colebrooke’s assertion that they “are frequently cited, and by modern authors on the Sdnkhya.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. L., p. 233. The next work recorded as by Panchas‘ikha, is metrical; unless, indeed, as 1s quite possible, the longer extracts, to be given after the following couplets, belong, with one or more of them, toa treatise mixed of prose and verse. srg ara aria Fema caseqara | RITA eaeg Bera aaa ay | This couplet is quoted, by Vijnana Bhikshu, in his Vijndndmyita, with the following introduction; fataw arg MAUS TAMIA Bay Fefnerara:! This is the best voucher I have for advancing that Panchas’ikha commented on the Tattwa-samdsa, of which the words fafa¥dt ara: do really constitute a fl topic. This couplet is again quoted, partially, by Vijnana, in his Yoga-vértika, as well as in Bhavé Ganes‘a’s Yogénus'dsana-sitra-vrittt ; and in full, by | Kshemananda on the Tattwa-samdsa, in the Sénkhya-krama-dipiké, and by Bhéva Ganes’a in the Tattwa-yéthérihya-dipana. Various readings of it are: ddau for ddyas; hi for tu; vimoksho for tu moksho ; kyitsna for krich- chhra ; and kshayah for kshaydt. Bhivé Ganes’a, in his Yogdénus’dsana-sitra-vritti, refers the stanza just given, directly to Panchas’ikha; but the same author, in his Tattwa-ydéthér. thya-dipana, introduces these verses, and the three couplets following, by expressions importing that they were borrowed, not from, but through, Panchas ikha. wardufaraa sagas fara: | Be aa fast aft gaa aa UAT tl Variants: yatra-tatra for yatra-kutra ; ratah for sthitah ; and mundt jatt sikhé and s‘ikht mundi jati for jati mundi s'tkhé. sada g aie aa daca a! afaufignadn sai aafsaaa II Variants: prékritena cha for prékritena tu ; and baddho ’yam tu nigadyate, baddho nényena muchyate, and bandho ’yam cha nigadyate, for baddho jantur vivartate. wafa a acea auraguaeqrafazar aq! fraanm waaay wis Le TUG: F yaa tl Variants: chatwéri for tattwéni ; swardpair for swaripani ; ; pdpo for papmé ; and bhujyate for yujyate. 13 descanted on the theistic Sinkhya os well as on the atheistic. *' Now, these three couplets and that preceding them, the first and the third as acknowledged quotations, are also found in the Sdukhya-krama-dipikd. The last two ‘are cited both there and in the Sénkhya-stitra-vivarana. The first has been spoken of above; and the second is in Kshemé- nanda on the Tattwa-samdsa, and in Gaudapada on the Sdrkhya-kérikd. It is, besides, observable that Bhivi Ganes‘a does not quote a syllable as derived through Panchas’ikha, that does not occur in the Sénkkya-krama- dipiké.