Mircea Eliade YOGA IMMORTALITY AND ... - Brihaspati.net

They may have been several "schools" Samkhya, differing mainly by its more or less
nuanced theism and his conception of the soul. Even among the comments LATE is still
the tradition of a plu-Lalide "schools" Samkhya. Gunaratna (fourteenth century), the Saddarsanasamuccaya
commentator mentions two schools of Samkhya: maulikya (original)
and Uttara (late). The first argues that there is a prakrti (pradhana) (for every soul atman),
while the second view, along with the classical Samkhya, there is only one pradhana for
all individual souls (Dasgupta, op cit, p. 217; Kali Pada Bhattacharya, Some Problems of
Sankhya Sankhya Philosophy and Literature, p. 515, Indian Historical Quarterly, vol.
VIII, 1932, p. 509,520; CAF Rhys Davids, id. IX, 2, 1933, p. 585-587). Dasgupta thought
he could find a pre-classical Samkhya doctrine in Caraka (op. cit, p. 213,216, but see J.
Filliozat, La doctrine clasique of medecine indienne, Paris 1949, p. 166), O. Strauss (Eine
alte Formel der Philosophie bei Samkhya-Yoga Vatsyayana, Festgabe Jacobi, 1926, p.
358-368). On the pre-classical Samkhya see now E. H. Johnston, Early Samkhya
(London, 1937).
The first comment is Javamangala karika Samkhya attributed to Sankara (ed. Haradatta
SRMA, Calcutta Oriental Series, No. 19, Calcutta, 1926, date uncertain, anyway before
Vacaspatimisra (Sanna, and the other commentaries Jayamangala on Samkhyasaptati,
Indian Historical, 1929, p. 417). This book has no great philosophical interest.
Samkhya-tattva-Kaumudi of Vacaspatimisra (ninth century) enjoyed great popu-larity
and has been one of the Samkhya treated most used and discussed. Sanskrit Text and
English Translation by Ganganath Jha, Bombay, 1896, German Translation by R. Garbe,
Samkhya-Der Mondschein der Wahrheit, Vacaspatimisra's Samkhya-tattvakaumudi in
Deutch Ubersetzung, nebst einer Einleitung uber
Alter und das dir Herkunftder Samkhya Philosophie, Munich, 1892; A. Barth, Oeuvres,
vol. II, Paris, 1914, p. 136-137). We know a gloss of Narayana (Samkhyacandrika) on the
Samkhya-tattva-Kaumudi.
Matharavrtti newly discovered (there is a rough edition by Pandit Vishnu Prasad Sarma,
Benares, 1922, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series No. 296), led to a series of disputes
concerning the priority on further comments from Isvara Krsna, Gaudapadabhasya.
According to S. K. Belvalkar, who discovered the manuscript is only Matharavrtti
comment sanscito which was translated into Chinese by Paramartha between 557-569,
and so far oon-sidered as lost (Belvalkar, Matharavrtti and the date of Isvara Krsna, P.
172, Shandarkar Commemoration Volume, 1917, p. 171-184). The Matharavrtti
confrontation with the French version of Paramartha comment made by Takakusu (Bull.
Fr Ext Eq Orient, vol. IV, 978-1064) makes Belvalkar believe they are identical. Also
considers himself a sage Gaudapadabhasya (vra century) as a summary of Matharavrtti
(which according to the dates from the sixth century). Dhruva (Proceedings of the I
Oriental Conference, Poona, p. 275) considers even more before the date of Matraravrtti:
based on a passage from Anuyogadvara, quoted in Ta Matharavrtti, Belvalkar finds the
date of the latter should be treated in frjada n to in centuries, if not the i. But his opinion
has found no echo.
The chronology proposed by Bevalkar for different riomentarios of Isvarakrsna, as well
as the priority of Matharavrtti have been controversial, see Belvalkar, Matharavrtti
(Annals of the Bhamdarkar Institute, Vol V, Poona, 1924, p. 133-168) , S. Suryanarayana
Sastri, The Chinese Suvama-saptati and the Math-vrtti (Journal of Oriental Research,
1930, p. 34-40; id. Math and Paramartha, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1931. P.