Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/233

 VII] Sii1fzkhya of Paiicafikha and Caraka 21 7 for the existence of the self are also the same. Like Caraka again Pancasikha also says that all consciousness is due to the conditions of the conglomeration of our physical body mind,-and the element of "cetas." They are mutually independent, and by such independence carry on the process of life and work. None of the phenomena produced by such a conglomeration are self. All our suffering comes in because we think these to be the self. Moka is realized when we can practise absolute renunciation of these phenomena. The gU1].as described by Paficasikha are the different kinds of good and bad qualities of the mind as Caraka has it. The state of the conglomeration is spoken of as the ketra, as Caraka says, and there is no annihilation or eternality; and the last state is described as being like that when all rivers lose themselves in the ocean and it is called alinga (without any characteristic)-a term reserved for prakrti in later Sarpkhya. This state is attainable by the doctrine of ultimate renuncia- tion which is also called the doctrine of complete destruction (sanzyagbadha ). GU1].aratna (fourteenth century A.D.), a commentator of $atj- darSa1laSamuccaya, mentions two schools of Sarpkhya, the Maulikya (original) and the Uttara or (later)1. Of these the doctrine of the Maulikya Sarpkhya is said to be that which believed that there was a separate pradhana for each atman (maulikyasti1!lkhyti lzytitmtinamiitmiinam prati p!,tlzak pradlztillam vadanti). This seems to be a reference to the Sarpkhya doctrine I have just sketched. I am therefore disposed to think that this represents the earliest systematic doctrine of Sarpkhya. I n AI ahtibhtirata XII. 3 I 8 three schools of Sarpkhya are mentioned, viz. those who admitted twenty-four categories (the school I have sketched above), those who admitted twenty- five (the well-known orthodox Sarpkhya system) and those who admitted twenty-six categories. This last school admitted a supreme being in addition to purua and this was the twenty-sixth principle. This agrees with the orthodox Yoga system and the form of Sarpkhya advocated in the M alziiblzarata. The schools of Sarpkhya of twenty-four and twenty-five categories are here denounced as unsatisfactory. Doctrines similar to the school of Sarpkhya we have sketched above are referred to in some of the 1 GUl)aratna's Tarkarahasyadipika, p. 99.