Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/84

 68 Observat£ons on Systems of Indian Philosophy [CH. nor try to establish their own validity on their authority. These are principally three in number, the Buddhist, J aina and the Carvaka. The astika-mata or orthodox schools are six in number, Saf!lkhya, Yoga, Vedanta, Mlmarpsa, Nyaya and Vaiseika, generally known as the six systems (a4darsallal). The Sarpkhya is ascribed to a mythical Kapila, but the earliest works on the subject are probably now lost. The Yoga system is attributed to Patafijali and the original sutras are called the Patail/ala Yoga siUras. The general metaphysical position of these two systems with regard to soul, nature, cosmology and the final goal is almost the same, and the difference lies in this that the Yoga system acknowledges a god (livara) as distinct from Atman and lays much importance on certain mystical practices (commonly known as Yoga practices) for the achieve- ment of liberation, whereas the Saf!lkhya denies the existence of Isvara and thinks that sincere philosophic thought and culture are sufficient to produce the true conviction of the truth and thereby bring about liberation. It is probable that the system of Sarpkhya associated with Kapila and the Yoga system associated with Pataf1jali are but two divergent modifications of an original Sarpkhya school, of which we now get only references here and there. These systems therefore though generally counted as two should more properly be looked upon as two different schools of the same Saf!lkhya system-one may be called the Kapila Sarpkhya and the other Pataf1jala Sarpkhya. The Purva Mlmaf!lsa (from the root man to think-rational conclusions) cannot properly be spoken of as a system of philo- sopny. I t is a systematized code of principles in accordance with which the Vedic texts are to be interpreted for purposes of sacrifices. 1 The word "darfalla" in the sense of true philosophic knowledge has its earliest use in the Vaife#ka sutras of Kal)iida (IX. ii. 13) which I consider as pre-Buddhistic. The Buddhist pi!akas (.4-00 B.C.) called the heretical opinions "di!!hi" (Sanskrit-dr!?!i from the same root drf from which darsana is formed). Haribhadra (fifth century A.D.) uses the word Darsana in the sense of systems of philosophy (sarvadarfanavacyo' rthalj.-.$a{idarfanasamuccaya I.). Ratnakirtti (end of the tenth century A.D.) uses the word also in the same sense (" Yadi uiima darfane darfalle niilliiprakiiram sattva/ak- azam uktamasti." Kfa!zabhaill{llsiddhi in Six Buddldst N;'iiya tracts, p. 20). Miidhava (133 I A. D.) calls his Compendium of all systems of philosophy, Sarvadarsa/Zasar!lgraha. The word" mata" (opinion or view) was also freely used in quoting the views of other systems. But thcre is no word to denote 'philosophers' in the technical sense. The Buddhists used to call those who held heretical views" tairthika." The words" siddha," "jilii1zin," etc. do not denote philosophers in the modern sense, they are used rather in the scnse of " seers" or "perfects."