FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269  
270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   >>   >|  
________ [Footnote 1: Patanjali's Mahabha@sya, IV. I. 3. _Atisannikar@sadativiprakar@sat murttyantaravyavadhanat tamasav@rtatvat indriyadaurvalyadatipramadat,_ etc. (Benares edition.)] [Footnote 2: _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhita,_ pp. 108, 110.] 220 the categories, the inactivity of the puru@sas and the five _viparyyayas_, nine tu@s@tis, the defects of organs of twenty-eight kinds, and the eight siddhis [Footnote ref 1]. But the content of the _Sa@s@titantra_ as given in _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhita_ is different from it, and it appears from it that the Sa@mkhya of the _Sa@s@titantra_ referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhita_ was of a theistic character resembling the doctrine of the Pancaratra Vai@snavas and the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhita_ says that Kapila's theory of Sa@mkhya was a Vai@s@nava one. Vijnana Bhiksu, the greatest expounder of Sa@mkhya, says in many places of his work _Vijnanam@rta Bha@sya_ that Sa@mkhya was originally theistic, and that the atheistic Sa@mkhya is only a _prau@dhivada_ (an exaggerated attempt to show that no supposition of Is'vara is necessary to explain the world process) though the _Mahabharata_ points out that the difference between Sa@mkhya and Yoga is this, that the former is atheistic, while the latter is theistic. The discrepancy between the two accounts of _@Sa@s@titantra_ suggests that the original _Sa@s@titantra_ as referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhita_ was subsequently revised and considerably changed. This supposition is corroborated by the fact that Gu@naratna does not mention among the important Sa@mkhya works _@Sa@s@titantra_ but _@Sa@s@titantroddhara_ ___________________________________________________________________ [Footnote 1: The doctrine of the _viparyyaya, tusti_, defects of organs, and the _siddhi_ are mentioned in the _Karika_ of Is'varakr@sna, but I have omitted them in my account of Samkhya as these have little philosophical importance. The viparyyaya (false knowledge) are five, viz. avidya (ignorance), asmita (egoism), raga (attachment), dve@sa (antipathy), abhimives'a (self-love), which are also called _tamo, moha, mahamoha, tamisra_, and _andhatamisra_. These are of nine kinds of tusti, such as the idea that no exertion is necessary, since prak@rti will herself bring our salvation (_ambhas_), that it is not necessary to meditate, for it is enough if we renounce the householder's life (_salila_), that there is no hurry, salvation will come in time (_megha_), that
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   245   246   247   248   249   250   251   252   253   254   255   256   257   258   259   260   261   262   263   264   265   266   267   268   269  
270   271   272   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Ahirbudhnya

 

titantra

 

Footnote

 
theistic
 

doctrine

 
viparyyaya
 

supposition

 

atheistic

 

organs

 
referred

salvation

 

defects

 

varakr

 

Karika

 

salila

 

householder

 

renounce

 
Samkhya
 
omitted
 
mentioned

account

 

naratna

 
corroborated
 

mention

 

titantroddhara

 

philosophical

 

siddhi

 
important
 

called

 

changed


andhatamisra

 

tamisra

 

exertion

 

mahamoha

 

ambhas

 

egoism

 

attachment

 
asmita
 

ignorance

 
knowledge

avidya

 

meditate

 

abhimives

 

antipathy

 

importance

 

twenty

 

siddhis

 

viparyyayas

 

content

 

snavas