Part 33 (1/2)
218
other chapters of the _Mahabharata_ (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 ([email protected]@h_) are spoken of as manifesting from [email protected]
We do not know anything about asuri the direct disciple of Kapila [Footnote ref 1]. But it seems probable that the system of [email protected] we have sketched here which appears in fundamentally the same form in the _Mahabharata_ and has been attributed there to Pancas'ikha is probably the earliest form of [email protected] available to us in a systematic form. Not only does [email protected]'s reference to the school of Maulikya [email protected] justify it, but the fact that Caraka (78 A.U.) does not refer to the [email protected] as described by [email protected]@[email protected] and referred to in other parts of _Mahabharata_ is a definite proof that [email protected]@[email protected]'s [email protected] is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as an authoritative old [email protected] view.
Wa.s.silief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavasin altered the [email protected] according to his own views [Footnote ref 2]. Takakusu thinks that Vindhyavasin was a t.i.tle of [email protected]@[email protected] [Footnote ref 3] and Garbe holds that the date of [email protected]@[email protected] was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a very plausible view that [email protected]@[email protected] 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 _Karika_ seems to be in purport the same as a pa.s.sage which is found quoted in the
[Footnote 1: A verse attributed to asuri is quoted by [email protected] (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ p. 104). The purport of this verse is that when buddhi is transformed in a particular manner, it ([email protected]) has experience.
It is like the reflection of the moon in transparent water.]
[Footnote 2: Va.s.silief's _Buddhismus,_ p. 240.]
[Footnote 3: Takakusu's ”A study of Paramartha's life of Vasubandhu,” _J.
R.A.S._, 1905. This identification by Takakusu, however, appears to be extremely doubtful, for [email protected] mentions [email protected]@[email protected] and Vindhyavasin as two different authorities (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ pp. 102 and 104). The verse quoted from Vindhyavasin (p. 104) in [email protected]@tubh metre cannot be traced as belonging to [email protected]@[email protected] It appears that [email protected]@[email protected] wrote two books; one is the [email protected] karika_ and another an independent work on [email protected], a line from which, quoted by [email protected], stands as follows:
”[email protected] s'rotradisamuttha [email protected]_” (p. 108).
If Vacaspati's interpretation of the cla.s.sification of anumana in his _Tattvakaumudi_ be considered to be a correct explanation of [email protected] karika_ then [email protected]@[email protected] must be a different person from Vindhyavasin whose views on anumana as referred to in _S'lokavarttika,_ p. 393, are altogether different. But Vacaspati's own statement in the [email protected]_ (pp. 109 and 131) shows that his treatment there was not faithful.]
219
_Mahabhasya_ of Patanjali the grammarian (147 B.C.) [Footnote ref 1].
The subject of the two pa.s.sages are the enumeration of reasons which frustrate visual perception. This however is not a doctrine concerned with the strictly technical part of [email protected], and it is just possible that the book from which Patanjali quoted the pa.s.sage, and which was probably paraphrased in the arya metre by [email protected]@[email protected] was not a [email protected] book at all. But though the subject of the verse is not one of the strictly technical parts of [email protected], yet since such an enumeration is not seen in any other system of Indian philosophy, and as it has some special bearing as a safeguard against certain objections against the [email protected] doctrine of [email protected], the natural and plausible supposition is that it was the verse of a [email protected] book which was paraphrased by [email protected]@[email protected]