Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/239

 VII] Interp1/"etati01zS of Sii1?zkhya 223 GUt)aratna), but this is a mere conjecture. There is no reason to suppose that the Sarpkhya doctrine found in the siitras differs in any important way from the Sarpkhya doctrine as found in the Siil?zkhya ktirikti. The only point of importance is this, that the Siil!lkhya siitras hold that when the U paniads spoke of one ab- solute pure intelligence they meant to speak of unity as involved in the class of intelligent puruas as distinct from the class of the gut)as. As all puruas were of the nature of pure intelligence, they were spoken of in the U paniads as one, for they all form the category or class of pure intelligence, and hence may in some sense be regarded as one. This compromise cannot be found in the Sti'f!lkhya kiirikti. This is, however, a case of omission and not of difference. Vijfiana Bhiku, the commentator of the Siil!Z- kll)1a siitra, was more inclined to theistic Sarpkhya or Yoga than to atheistic Sarpkhya. This is proved by his own remarks in his Stil?zkhyapravacallabhaya, Y ogavtirttika, and V ijizi1niim,rta- bhiisya (an independent commentary on the Brahmasiitras of Badarayat)a on theistic Sarpkhya lines). Vijfiana Bhiku's own view could not properly be called a thorough Yoga view, for he agreed more with the views of the Sarpkhya doctrine of the Purat)as, where both the diverse puruas and the prakrti are said to be merged in the end in Isvara, by whose will the creative process again began in the prakrti at the end of each pralaya. He could not avoid the distinctively atheistic arguments of the Siil!lklzya siUras, but he remarked that these were used only with a view to showing that the Sarpkhya system gave such a rational explanation that even without the intervention of an Isvara it could explain all facts. Vijfiana Bhiku in his interpretation of Sarpkhya differed on many points from those of Vacaspati, and it is difficult to say who is right. Vijfiana Bhiku has this advantage that he has boldly tried to give interpretations on some difficult points on which Vacaspati remained silent. I refer principally to the nature of the conception of the gut)as, which I believe is the most important thing in Sarpkhya. Viji'iana Bhiku described the gut)as as reals or super-subtle substances, but Vacaspati and Gau<;lapada (the other commentator of the Sti1!lkhya kiirikti) remained silent on the point. There is nothing, however, in their interpretations which would militate against the interpretation of Vijfiana Bhiku, but yet while they were silent as to any definite explanations regarding the nature of the gut)as, Bhiku definitely