Line 64: |
Line 64: |
| so the Prakriti functions for the sake of moksha of the spirit. | | so the Prakriti functions for the sake of moksha of the spirit. |
| | | |
− | —Samkhya karika, Verse 57[122][123] | + | —Samkhya karika, Verse 57 |
| Samkhya regards ignorance (avidya) as the root cause of suffering and bondage (Samsara). Samkhya states that the way out of this suffering is through knowledge (viveka). Moksha (liberation), states Samkhya school, results from knowing the difference between prakruti (avyakta-vyakta) and purusha (jña). | | Samkhya regards ignorance (avidya) as the root cause of suffering and bondage (Samsara). Samkhya states that the way out of this suffering is through knowledge (viveka). Moksha (liberation), states Samkhya school, results from knowing the difference between prakruti (avyakta-vyakta) and purusha (jña). |
| | | |
Line 103: |
Line 103: |
| | | |
| == Other Textual Material == | | == Other Textual Material == |
− | The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya philosophy is the Samkhya Karika (c. 200 CE[80] or 350–450 CE[54]) of Isvarak???a.[54] There were probably other texts in early centuries CE, however none of them are available today.[81] | + | The earliest surviving authoritative text on classical Samkhya philosophy is the Samkhya Karika (c. 200 CE or 350–450 CE) of Isvarak???a. There were probably other texts in early centuries CE, however none of them are available today. |
| | | |
− | Isvarak???a in his Karika describes a succession of the disciples from Kapila, through Asuri and Pañcasikha to himself. The text also refers to an earlier work of Samkhya philosophy called ?a??itantra (science of sixty topics) which is now lost.[54] The text was imported and translated into Chinese about the middle of the 6th century CE.[82] The records of Al Biruni, the Persian visitor to India in the early 11th century, suggests Samkhyakarika was an established and definitive text in India in his times.[83] | + | Isvarak???a in his Karika describes a succession of the disciples from Kapila, through Asuri and Pañcasikha to himself. The text also refers to an earlier work of Samkhya philosophy called ?a??itantra (science of sixty topics) which is now lost. The text was imported and translated into Chinese about the middle of the 6th century CE. The records of Al Biruni, the Persian visitor to India in the early 11th century, suggests Samkhyakarika was an established and definitive text in India in his times. |
| | | |
− | —Samkhya Karika Verse 4–6, [84] | + | —Samkhya Karika Verse 4–6, |
− | The most popular commentary on the Samkhyakarikia was the Gau?apada Bha?ya attributed to Gau?apada, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy. Richard King, Professor of Religious Studies, thinks it is unlikely that Gau?apada could have authored both texts, given the differences between the two philosophies. Other important commentaries on the karika were Yuktidipika (c. 6th century CE) and Vacaspati’s Sankhyatattvakaumudi (c. 10th century CE).[85] | + | The most popular commentary on the Samkhyakarikia was the Gau?apada Bha?ya attributed to Gau?apada, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta school of philosophy. Richard King, Professor of Religious Studies, thinks it is unlikely that Gau?apada could have authored both texts, given the differences between the two philosophies. Other important commentaries on the karika were Yuktidipika (c. 6th century CE) and Vacaspati’s Sankhyatattvakaumudi (c. 10th century CE). |
| | | |
− | The Sankhyapravacana Sutra (c. 14th century CE) renewed interest in Samkhya in the medieval era. It is considered the second most important work of Samkhya after the karika.[86] Commentaries on this text were written by Anirruddha (Sa?khyasutrav?tti, c. 15th century CE), Vijñanabhik?u (Sa?khyapravacanabha?ya, c. 16th century CE), Mahadeva (v?ttisara, c. 17th century CE) and Nagesa (Laghusa?khyasutrav?tti).[87] According to Surendranath Dasgupta, scholar of Indian philosophy, Charaka Samhita, an ancient Indian medical treatise, also contains thoughts from an early Samkhya school.[88] | + | The Sankhyapravacana Sutra (c. 14th century CE) renewed interest in Samkhya in the medieval era. It is considered the second most important work of Samkhya after the karika. Commentaries on this text were written by Anirruddha (Sa?khyasutrav?tti, c. 15th century CE), Vijñanabhik?u (Sa?khyapravacanabha?ya, c. 16th century CE), Mahadeva (v?ttisara, c. 17th century CE) and Nagesa (Laghusa?khyasutrav?tti). According to Surendranath Dasgupta, scholar of Indian philosophy, Charaka Samhita, an ancient Indian medical treatise, also contains thoughts from an early Samkhya school. |
| | | |
− | The 13th century text Sarvadarsanasangraha contains 16 chapters, each devoted to a separate school of Indian philosophy. The 13th chapter in this book contains a description of the Samkhya philosophy.[89] | + | The 13th century text Sarvadarsanasangraha contains 16 chapters, each devoted to a separate school of Indian philosophy. The 13th chapter in this book contains a description of the Samkhya philosophy. |
| | | |
| == Lost Textual References == | | == Lost Textual References == |
| In his Studies in Samkhya Philosophy, K.C. Bhattacharya writes: | | In his Studies in Samkhya Philosophy, K.C. Bhattacharya writes: |
| | | |
− | Much of Samkhya literature appears to have been lost, and there seems to be no continuity of tradition from ancient times to the age of the commentators...The interpretation of all ancient systems requires a constructive effort; but, while in the case of some systems where we have a large volume of literature and a continuity of tradition, the construction is mainly of the nature of translation of ideas into modern concepts, here in Samkhya the construction at many places involves supplying of missing links from one's imagination. It is risky work, but unless one does it one cannot be said to understand Samkhya as a philosophy. It is a task that one is obliged to undertake. It is a fascinating task because Samkhya is a bold constructive philosophy.[90] | + | Much of Samkhya literature appears to have been lost, and there seems to be no continuity of tradition from ancient times to the age of the commentators...The interpretation of all ancient systems requires a constructive effort; but, while in the case of some systems where we have a large volume of literature and a continuity of tradition, the construction is mainly of the nature of translation of ideas into modern concepts, here in Samkhya the construction at many places involves supplying of missing links from one's imagination. It is risky work, but unless one does it one cannot be said to understand Samkhya as a philosophy. It is a task that one is obliged to undertake. It is a fascinating task because Samkhya is a bold constructive philosophy. |
| | | |
| == References == | | == References == |
| Presently Wikipedia | | Presently Wikipedia |