Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/234

 218 The KaPila and the Piita'i'ijala Sa'f!Zkhya [CH. other chapters of the Mahiibhiirata (XII. 203, 204). The self apart from the body is described as the moon of the new moon day; it is said that as Rahu (the shadow on the sun during an eclipse) cannot be seen apart from the sun, so the self cannot be seen apart from the body. The selfs (Sariri!la!l) are spoken of as manifesting from prakrti. We do not know anything about .A.suri the direct disciple of Kapila 1. But it seems probable that the system of Sarpkhya we have sketched here which appears in fundamentally the same form in the .111 ahiiblliirata and has been attributed there to Pafi- casikha is probably the earliest form of Sarpkhya available to us in a systematic form. Not only does GUlJaratna's reference to the school of Maulikya Sarpkhya justify it, but the fact that Caraka (78 A.D.) does not refer to the Sarpkhya as described by Isvarak- r1!a and referred to in other parts of M ahiibhiirata is a definite proof that Isvarakr1!a's Sarpkhya is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as an authoritative old Sarpkhya view. Wassilief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavasin al- tered the Sarpkhya according to his own views 2. Takakusu thinks that Vindhyavasin was a title ofIsvarakr1!a3 and Garbe holds that the date of Isvarakr1!a was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a very plausible view that Isvarakr1!a was indebted for his karikas to another work, which was probably written in a style different from what he employs. The seventh verse of his Kiirikii seems to be in purport the same as a passage which is found quoted in the 1 A verse attributed to Asuri is quoted by GUI)aratna (Tarkarahasyadipikii, p. 10-4-). The purport of this verse is that when buddhi is transformed in a particular manner, it (purua) has experience. It is like the reflection of the moon in transparent water. 2 Vassilief's Buddhismus, p. 2-4- 0 . 3 Takakusu's .. A study of Paramiirtha's life of Vasuballdhu," J. R. A. S., 1905. This identification by Takakusu, however, appears to be extremely doubtful, for GUI)aratna mentions Isvarakrgla and Vindhyaviisin as two different authorities (Tarka- rahasyadiPikii, pp. 102 and 104). The verse quoted from Vindhyaviisin (p. 10-4-) in anu!ii!ubh metre cannot be traced as belonging to Isvarakr!iil)a. It appears that Isvara- kn;Qa wrote two books; one is the Siimkhya kiirikd and another an independent work on Siilpkhya, a line from which, quoted by GUl)aratna, stands as follows: .. Pratimyatiidh)'aVasiiya!1 frotriidisa11luttha adhyakam" (p. 108). If Viicaspati's interpretation of the classification of anumiina in his Tattvakaumudi be considercd to be a correct explanation of Stll!lkhya kiirikii then Isvarakrl)a must be a different person from Vindhyavasin whose views on anumiina as referred to in Slokavdrttika, p. 393, are altogether different. But Viicaspati's own statement in the Tiitparyyat ikd (pp. 109 and 13 I) shows that his treatment there was not faithful.