No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
It has been suggested by Dr. Belvalkar that the original commentary on the Sāṁkhya Kārikā, which was translated by Paramārtha into Chinese, was none other than the Māṭhara-Vṛtti and that such differences as there are between the two are not different in kind from the variations between different recensions, such as the Chinese and the Japanese. He cites several instances of agreement between the Chinese commentary and the Māṭhara-Vṛtti, one of the most notable of these being the initial story of how Kapila came to impart the teaching to Āsuri. A closer examination of the two commentaries would, however, seem to reveal certain doctrinal differences of some importance, variations such as seem not to be susceptible of being explained away on the basis of differences of version. These differences throw considerable doubt on the possibility of the Māṭhara-Vṛtti having been the original translated by Paramārtha. It is the object of this paper to set out the results of a fairly full analysis made by the present writer. While no positive conclusion is possible, it would appear that Professor Keith's suggestion of both commentaries having drawn from some common original is, perhaps, the most plausible view.
page 623 note 1 Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume, 171–84.
page 623 note 2 Bulletin de l'École Française d'Extrême Orient, iv, 978 et seq.
page 624 note 1 Indian Historical Quarterly, V, iii, 416–31.
page 626 note 1 Combiné avec lea organes dea sens.
page 626 note 2 Pāṇis tāvat śabda-sparśa-rasa-rūpa-gandha-yuktaḥ.
page 627 note 1 See “The Maṇimēkalai account of the Sāṁkhya,” Journal of Indian History, viii, 322–7.
page 628 note 1 Yathā vyaktād visadṛśam pradhānam tathā pradhāna sadharmā puruṣaḥ. tathā hy ahetumān nityo vyāpī niṣkriya eko 'nāśrito 'liṅgo niravayavaḥ svatantra iti (Māṭhara). Anekam vyaktam, ekam avyaktam, tathā ca pumān apy ekaḥ (Gauḍdapāda).—Verse 11.
page 628 note 2 Bulletin de l'Ëcole Française d'Extrême Orient, iv, 994.
page 630 note 1 The Editor of the Māṭhara-Vṭtti, in the Chowkhamba Series, puts in a footnote explaining the phrase as referring to the absence of the contrary, i.e. vivekitva, etc., from the unevolved, and says this is what Māṭhara means. The explanation is not convincing, but if that is Māṭhara's meaning, it differs from both Vācaspati's and Paramārtha's understanding of the phrase.
page 631 note 1 See The Sāṁkhya Kārikā, University of Madras, p. 126.
Page 634 note 1 Bulletin de l'École FranÇaise d'Extrême Orient, iv, 1038.
page 635 note 1 Après avoir obligé l'Âme à se manifester.
page 636 note 1 The present writer has shown in his edition of the Sāṁkhya Kārikā how the number seventy of the Saptati may be accounted for by omitting verse 63, as the Chinese version does, and treating verses 72 and 73 as additions by later hands. Any consideration of the verses mentioned favours this procedure, while there is nothing of any weight to be urged against it.
page 639 note 1 See also Keith, , The Sāṁkhya System, p. 70Google Scholar, particularly fn.