Abstract
Sāṃkhya, in its commentary Yuktidīpikā, responds to the Buddhist claim that a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) and a valid cognition (pramā), its result (phala), are identical. The response of Sāṃkhya was pioneering: it is one of the two earliest responses to the Buddhists in the lively polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result. (The other of these two earliest responses is in the Ślokavārttika by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa.) Sāṃkhya’s voice in this polemic is earlier than that of Nyāya, which is, as well as Mīmāṃsā, the main rival of the Buddhists in addressing this issue. This study provides a translation and detailed reconstruction of the Yuktidīpikā’s polemic with the Buddhist opponent, which has not been researched before, as well as a critical assessment of the Sāṃkhya position. The Yuktidīpikā polemicizes against Dignāga. It aptly questions the standpoint of the Buddhist opponent and presents an alternative standpoint, contrasting its own view with that of the opponent. Though the Sāṃkhya position formulated in the Yuktidīpikā evokes several critical remarks, the Yuktidīpikā’s response is an important contribution to Indian thought.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
One of the most lively polemics in Indian epistemology is devoted to the question of whether a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) and valid cognition (pramā), its result (phala), are identical to or different from one another. The Buddhists, by which I mean here Dignāga and those who followed in his footsteps, claimed that a pramāṇa and its result are identical. Naiyāyikas and Mīmāṃsakas were their main rivals.
It appears that Sāṃkhya, too, participated in this polemic. In my study, I explore Sāṃkhya’s voice in this discussion. The aim of my research is to reconstruct and critically evaluate the position of Sāṃkhya.
Sāṃkhya’s polemic against the Buddhists on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result is presented in the Yuktidīpikā (YD; ca. 7th c. ce; the author is unknown),Footnote 1 a classical Sāṃkhya commentary on Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṃkhyakārikā (SK; ca. 350–450 ce). This commentary is unique. It is the most detailed and polemical of all classical Sāṃkhya commentaries. It sheds light on many issues not addressed in other Sāṃkhya texts.
The polemic on whether a pramāṇa and its result are identical to or different from one another is part of the YD’s commentary on the 5th kārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s SK. Sāṃkhya’s opponent is most likely Dignāga. The YD contains different polemics challenging Dignāga.Footnote 2 As to our polemic, the opponent’s view is similar to the view of Dignāga formulated in his Pramāṇasamuccaya (PS) with the autocommentary Pramāṇasamuccayavṛtti (PSV).Footnote 3
It is necessary to emphasize that in the YD, we discover one of the two earliest responses to Dignāga. The other of these two earliest responses is in the Ślokavārttika by the great seventh-century Mīmāṃsaka Kumārila Bhaṭṭa. It has not yet been determined by scholars which of these two texts—the Ślokavārttika or the YD—is earlier.Footnote 4 In any case, the YD’s answer is earlier than that of Nyāya, the main rival of the Buddhists. Nyāya philosopher UddyotakaraFootnote 5 does not propose a response to the Buddhist identification of a pramāṇa and its result in his Nyāyavārttika. The Nyāyavārttika includes, like the YD and the Ślokavārttika, different polemics against Dignāga,Footnote 6 but the Nyāyavārttika was probably composed earlier than those two texts.Footnote 7
Current State of the Research
As far as I know, the YD’s polemic against the Buddhist position on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result has not been researched before.Footnote 8 Bandyopadhyay (1979, pp. 65–66) and Chattopadhyay (1979, p. 15) make several remarks on this polemic; they do not present it or analyze it in detail. Bandyopadhyay cites a small excerptFootnote 9 from the polemic; in this excerpt, the author of the YD states that a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) and its result (phala) cannot be identical because their substrata (āśraya) are different: a pramāṇa is located in the buddhi (the highest psychic organ and subtlest product of prakṛti), whereas its result (phala) is located in puruṣa. Relying upon Sāṃkhya teaching, according to which puruṣa cannot undergo any transformation, Bandyopadhyay correctly observes that “the object-shaped buddhi can find a location in puruṣa only in the form of an image” or “false ascription”. Bandyopadhyay also holds that if the buddhi is reflected in puruṣa or the buddhi’s experience is falsely ascribed to puruṣa, the position of Sāṃkhya, in fact, implies the identity of a pramāṇa and its phala asserted by the Buddhists.Footnote 10 I cannot agree with this. As to the buddhi’s reflection in puruṣa, puruṣa, who is changeless and fundamentally different from prakṛti, cannot—unlike the buddhi—assume the form of the object. As to the false ascription of the buddhi’s experience to puruṣa, the falsity of this ascription implies that puruṣa, in fact, remains unaffected by the buddhi’s modification.
Chattopadhyay’s remarks are very different from Bandyopadhyay’s. Chattopadhyay says that unlike the Buddhists, for whom “the distinction between pramā and pramāṇa is only imaginary”, the author of the YD and Vācaspati Miśra (the author of the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī, the last classical Sāṃkhya commentary) “draw a real distinction between pramā and pramāṇa”; Chattopadhyay also calls this distinction “fundamental”. On the other hand, Chattopadhyay writes, “Pramāṇa is the unconscious mode of the intellect whereas pramā is the same mode illuminated.” This contradicts, first, Chattopadhyay’s own statement about the fundamental difference between a pramāṇa and its pramā. Second, the position of the author of the YD is that the substrata of a pramāṇa and its result are fundamentally different from one another, for a pramāṇa, which is a modification of the buddhi, is located in prakṛti, whereas a pramā is located in puruṣa.
Kumar (1984, pp. 26–27) provides a brief summary of the polemic; the summary informs us about the standpoint of the Buddhist opponent and of the author of the YD. The summary is accurate. What I disagree with is Kumar’s opinion that in this polemic, a pramāṇa is understood as a process. In this polemic, a pramāṇa is understood as the instrument / instrumental cause (karaṇa) of valid cognition (see my translation and reconstruction of the polemic in the next chapter of this article).
Harzer (2006, p. 79) and Kondō (2010, pp. 1134–1135) present the following argument for the difference of a pramāṇa and its result the author of the YD used in this polemic: a pramāṇa, which is located in the buddhi, and its result, which is located in puruṣa, have different substrata.Footnote 11
I would also like to mention Harzer’s helpful observations on this polemic, contained mostly in the notes to her translation of YD 5. She correctly points out that the Buddhist opponent’s position is the same as the position of Dignāga presented in his PS and PSV, chapter 1, kārikā 8cd with the commentary (2006, p. 79; 113, note 33). Harzer also observes that both the author of the YD and his Buddhist opponent share the sākāra theory,Footnote 12 according to which cognition assumes the form/shape (ākāra) of the object to be cognized, and that Sāṃkhya is sākāravādin and nirākāravādin at the same time because changeless puruṣa, unlike the buddhi, does not take on any ākāra (2006, p. 113, note 34).Footnote 13
Translation and Reconstruction of the Yuktidīpikā’s Polemic against the Buddhist Position on the Relationship between a Pramān.ṇa and Its Result
Translation of the Polemic
I will first cite the whole passage containing the YD’s polemic and next provide its reconstruction. The editors of the YD Wezler and Motegi use boldface type to highlight the vārttikas. They distinguish two levels in the YD—the vārttika and the bhāṣya—functioning as parts of one whole and probably belonging to the same author.Footnote 14
[Sāṃkhya adherent]:Footnote 15 … Perception (dṛṣṭa)Footnote 16 is that which follows the modification (vṛtty-upanipātin) of the senses (indriya) that seized [their respective] objects; [perception is that which is] neither tamasic nor rajasic due to the preponderance of sattva [and] has the nature of light. [Dṛṣṭa] means ‘perception’ (pratyakṣa). It is a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa).Footnote 17 The favor done by it for the power of consciousness is the result (phala). The objects of valid cognition (prameya) are sound (śabda), etc. Below, too, the relation between a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) and [its] result (phala) will be considered.
[Sāṃkhya opponent]: Is this result (phala) different or not different from the means of valid cognition (pramāṇa)?
[Sāṃkhya adherent]: How indeed (tāvat) can it be?
[Sāṃkhya opponent]: It is not different. Why? Because it has the form of apprehension (adhigama-rūpa). For the cognition (jñāna) has the form of apprehension—an object (artha) is apprehended (adhigata) through the rise of that [apprehension]; therefore (iti), how can the [cognitive] result (phala) be different [from its pramāṇa]?
[Sāṃkhya adherent]: How can there be an instrument (karaṇa) [of valid cognition] in this case?
[Sāṃkhya opponent]: But it is [only] because of the general opinion that there is an instrument (karaṇa) [of valid cognition]. For the rise of the cognition (jñāna) possesses the semblance (nirbhāsa) of the object. Though it [the rise of the cognition—jñānasya utpattiḥ] has the form of apprehension, on the worldly level (loka), it is considered as that which performs an operation (savyāpāra); [the fact that] there is an instrument [of valid cognition] is accepted due to the conceptual construction (kalpanā), not from the ultimate point of view (paramārtha).
[Sāṃkhya adherent]: The result (phala) is different from [the pramāṇa by which it is achieved] because of the difference of [their] substrata. For a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa), called ‘ascertainment’ (adhyavasāya), is located in the buddhi, [and its] result (phala), called ‘favor’ (anugraha) [done for puruṣa], is located in puruṣa. And two [things] which have different substrata cannot be the same [thing]. As to [your] words that a mere (eva) cognition (jñāna) is a [cognitive] result (phala) because it has the form of apprehension (adhigama-rūpa), this is unestablished. Why? [And] because this is unproved. For just as without cognition (jñāna), it is impossible to grasp that such things as a pot are thus formed (tad-rūpa) or not thus formed (atad-rūpa), in the same way, without puruṣa’s intelligence, a cognition is neither having the form of the object nor devoid of the form of the object. And likewise [our] authoritative text (śāstra) will [further] say:
“That is why due to their [puruṣa’s and prakṛti’s] contact (saṃyoga), unconscious subtle body (liṅga) is as it were endowed with consciousness (SK 20ab).”
Hence, for Sāṃkhya, it is not established that cognition (jñāna) has the form of apprehension without puruṣa’s intelligence. The discussion refers to the well-known [opposing] positions of bothFootnote 18 [that is, of Buddhists and Sāṃkhyas]. If [you object] that it is incorrect (ayukta) because puruṣa does not exist, [we answer:] no, for it is substantiated later. We will substantiate the existence of puruṣa in this [kārikā]: “Because that which is an aggregate of parts exists for someone else” (SK 17a). Therefore, for an adherent of the theory that a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) is the ascertainment (adhyavasāya), [which is the modification of the buddhi], it is established that a [cognitive] result (phala) is different from the means of valid cognition (pramāṇa).Footnote 19
What Pramān.ṇas Does the Polemic Deal with?
In the YD, like in Dignāga’s PS with its autocommentary and in Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s Ślokavārttika (IV, 74–79),Footnote 20 who responds, like the author of the YD, to Dignāga, the passage on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result is embedded within the discussion of perception. Dignāga deals with this issue in the first chapter of his PS and PSV, which is a chapter on perception (pratyakṣa). He explicates his position that a pramāṇa and its result are identical in section 1 of this chapter, kārikās 8cd–10 together with the commentary.Footnote 21 This is a section containing a general presentation of the Buddhist theory of perception. He returns to this issue in two other sections of the chapter on perception: in section 3, devoted to a critical examination of the Nyāya theory of perception, kārikās 3cd–4 with the commentary,Footnote 22 and in section 6, devoted to a critical examination of the Mīmāṃsā theory of perception, kārikā 9 with the commentary.Footnote 23
However, the Sāṃkhya perspective in the YD that a pramāṇa and its result are different from one another refers to all three pramāṇas. This follows from the YD’s passage, as well as from Sāṃkhya epistemology in general. In this passage, the author of the YD holds that a pramāṇa is a modification of the buddhi and its pramā is this modification transmitted to puruṣa. In Sāṃkhya, every valid cognition is a modification of the buddhi transmitted to / influenced by puruṣa.
I did not find any passage in which Sāṃkhya says that a pramāṇa and its result are identical. Indeed, I did not find any such comment in extant classical Sāṃkhya texts or in the following postclassical Sāṃkhya texts: the Tattvasamāsa (ca. 14th c. ce) with its commentary Kramadīpikā (ca. 14th c. ce) and the Sāṃkhyasūtras (ca. 15th c. ce) with Aniruddha’s commentary Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti (ca. 15th c. ce). Extant classical Sāṃkhya texts comprise the SK and eight commentaries on it: the commentary that survived in the Chinese translation of ParamārthaFootnote 24 (composed ca. 500 ce, translated into Chinese between 557 ce and 569 ce), the Sāṃkhyavṛtti (ca. 6th c. ce), the Sāṃkhyasaptativṛtti (ca. 6th c. ce), the Sāṃkhyakārikābhāṣya (or Gauḍapādabhāṣya; ca. 6th c. ce) by Gauḍapāda, the Yuktidīpikā (YD; ca. 7th c. ce), the Jayamaṅgalā (ca. 700 ce or later), the Māṭharavṛtti (ca. 800 ce or later) by Māṭhara, and the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī (or Tattvakaumudī; TK; ca. 841 ce or ca. 976 ce)Footnote 25 by Vācaspati Miśra.Footnote 26
Sāṃkhya refers to the etymology of the word pramāṇa, which means ‘measure’, that is, an instrument/tool for measuring, and compares achieving valid cognition (pramā) by pramāṇas—perception (ḍṛṣṭa, pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and reliable/authoritative verbal testimony (āpta-vacana, śabda)—to measuring different things (like corn and sandalwood) by using the measure appropriate for them—see, for example, Sāṃkhyakārikābhāṣya 4, YD 4 (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 67.11–13),Footnote 27Māṭharavṛtti 4, Kramadīpikā 22. For Sāṃkhyas, a pramāṇa is an instrument (karaṇa) for achieving a valid cognitive result, and an instrument cannot be identical to the result of the act carried out by this instrument. I cite the YD, “That by which something is validly cognized (pramīyate) is called ‘an instrument of valid cognition’ (pramāṇa). [The affix] lyuṭFootnote 28 denotes an instrument (karaṇa)” (YD 4; Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 67.6–7)Footnote 29. Much as how the measure called prastha can be identical with neither the corn measured nor with the result of the act of measuring, a pramāṇa can be identical neither with the object to be cognized (prameya) nor with the cognitive result achieved by it (pramā). In the YD’s polemic explored in this study, too, the author of the YD understands a pramāṇa as an instrument/instrumental cause (karaṇa) of valid cognition; he holds that an instrument cannot be identical with the result of this instrument’s act (YD 5; Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 77.16).Footnote 30
The last sentence of the YD’s polemic may seem to evidence that it discusses the relationship between perception (dṛṣṭa, pratyakṣa) and the result of this pramāṇa, not the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result in general. It may seem so because the term adhyavasāya (‘ascertainment’), used in the Sāṃkhya definition of perception, appears in this sentence. SK 5 defines perception (dṛṣṭa) as prativiṣayādhyavasāya. The last sentence of our polemic runs as follows: “Therefore, for an adherent of the theory that a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) is the ascertainment (adhyavasāya), [which is the modification of the buddhi], it is established that a [cognitive] result (phala) is different from the means of valid cognition (pramāṇa).” From the Sāṃkhya perspective, however, not only perception but each of its three pramāṇas can be characterized as adhyavasāya—for we read in SK 23: adhyavasāyo buddhir … (“the buddhi is the ascertainment”). Each of the pramāṇas is a sāttvika modification (vṛtti) of the buddhi, and therefore each of the pramāṇas is adhyavasāya. During the discussion of the Sāṃkhya definition of perception and right before the polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result, the author of the YD cites adhyavasāyo buddhir from kārikā 23 (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 77.4), which confirms that he keeps in mind that according to Sāṃkhya, not only perception but also other pramāṇas are adhyavasāya. Thus, the appearance of the term adhyavasāya in the last sentence of the polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result does not evidence that the polemic deals with perception only.
As to Mīmāṃsā, Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s position that a pramāṇa and its result are different from one another, defended in the Ślokavārttika’s chapter devoted to perception, encompasses all pramāṇas. This follows from his treating a pramāṇa as a means (sādhana) / an instrument (karaṇa) and from his view that a means / an instrument must be different from the result produced by it (Ślokavārttika IV, 74–75, 77).
In Nyāya, too, its position that a pramāṇa and its result are not identical refers to all pramāṇas. Nyāya, as well as Mīmāṃsā, is the main rival of the Buddhists in the polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result, but it joined the polemic later than Mīmāṃsā and Sāṃkhya. For Nyāya, too, a pramāṇa is a karaṇa and an instrument is not the same as the result achieved by it. Neither Uddyotakara in his Nyāyavārttika nor Vācaspati Miśra in his Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā participates in this polemic against the Buddhists. Jayanta Bhaṭṭa (840–900)Footnote 31 includes the polemic in his Nyāyamañjarī (1969, pp. 38–45), in its first chapter (āhnika), which is devoted to a general investigation of pramāṇas. Disagreeing with the Buddhists that hold that a pramāṇa is identical with the pramā achieved by it, Jayanta argues that a pramāṇa is an instrument (karaṇa) by which we get a valid cognitive result, and an instrument cannot be identical with the result produced by it (Nyāyamañjarī 1969, pp. 38–39).Footnote 32
It is very probable that also the Buddhist opponent’s position in the YD covers not only perception but also inference, that is, both of the pramāṇas that are accepted by Dignāga and his followers. Dignāga’s pupil Śaṅkarasvāmin in his Nyāyapraveśa (or Nyāyapraveśakasūtra) directly says that in the case of both perception and inference, a pramāṇa and its result are identical (Nyāyapraveśa 4.3).Footnote 33
Reconstruction of the Content of the Polemic
The Buddhist opponent asks whether the cognitive result achieved by a pramāṇa, a means of valid cognition, is different from it or not. He next states that a pramāṇa and its result are identical. He gives the following substantiation: because the cognitive result has the form of apprehension (adhigama-rūpa).Footnote 34 According to the text’s editors Wezler and Motegi, this substantiation belongs to the vārttika level of the YD. The bhāṣya explains: the cognition (jñāna), that is, the cognitive result, having the form of apprehension, is achieved through the rise of this very cognition, or apprehension; if the cognitive result is achieved through its own rise, the cognitive result cannot be different from the pramāṇa causing it. The Buddhist opponent holds that a valid cognition is produced by itself and therefore a valid cognition is at the same time the pramāṇa that produces this cognition.Footnote 35 This is the first of the two Buddhist opponent’s arguments for the identity of a pramāṇa and its result.Footnote 36
The author of the YD asks his opponent how there can be an instrument / instrumental cause (karaṇa) of valid cognition in this case. In Indian philosophy, generally speaking, achieving a valid cognitive result, or knowledge, requires an instrument (karaṇa), and a pramāṇa is this instrument. If a pramāṇa is the same as its result, pramā, how can a pramāṇa be the instrument of achieving the pramā? The same argument is used by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa in his attempt to refute the Buddhist position that a pramāṇa and its result are identical. Kumārila says that the Buddhist position contradicts the common practice to differentiate between a means (sādhana) and the result (sādhya) achieved by it: in ordinary life, people do not identify an axe with the cutting off done by the axe (Ślokavārttika IV, 74–75).
The Buddhist opponent responds by distinguishing between the worldly point of view (loka), or general opinion (prasiddhi), and the ultimate point of view (paramārtha). From the worldly perspective, a pramāṇa is different from its result, pramā. The existence of a karaṇa of valid cognition is merely a general opinion. From the worldly point of view, which is caused by the conceptual construction (kalpanā), “the rise of the cognition” (jñānasya utpattiḥ)Footnote 37 is understood as encompassing the karaṇa and its operation (vyāpāra). However, from the ultimate point of view, there is no karaṇa of valid cognition, and a pramāṇa is identical to its result. In fact, “the rise of the cognition” (jñānasya utpattiḥ) bears “the semblance (nirbhāsa) of the object [to be cognized]” and occurs due to this semblance (image, copy—nirbhāsa). The same jñāna is both the instrument of valid cognition and this cognition.
The above argument, stating that a pramāṇa is itself a cognition possessing the copy, or image, of the object to be cognized (prameya), is the second of the Buddhist opponent’s arguments for the identity of a pramāṇa and its result. We know that according to Dignāga’s PS together with PSV, a valid cognition (pramā) is caused by a mental image of the object to be cognized, and thus a pramā, a cognitive result (phala), is not different from the pramāṇa that causes it. A pramāṇa is a mental image of the object to be cognized. From the worldly point of view, it is endowed with activity, or function (vyāpāra), to produce a valid cognitive result (see the PS and PSV, chapter 1, kārikā 8cd).Footnote 38
Though it is not my task to assess the arguments of the Buddhist opponent, I will present one critical remark on each of them. The first of these arguments says that a pramāṇa and its result are identical because the cognitive result is achieved through the rise of this very cognition, that is, through its own rise. This argument assumes that the rise of the cognition, treated as a pramāṇa with its operation (vyāpāra) from the worldly point of view, is the same as this cognition because it is this very cognition that arises. If we look critically at this argument, we can object that a cognition that is arising (i.e., coming into being) is not identical to this cognition after it has arisen. A state of coming into being of a mental or physical phenomenon is not identical to the state of its actual existence. Objecting to the Buddhist opponent, we can also add that even from the worldly point of view, it is inappropriate to treat a cognition that is still coming into being as a pramāṇa. A cognition must first come into being, and only after that it can function as a pramāṇa, or a karaṇa producing a valid cognitive result. In Sāṃkhya epistemology, the rise of a valid cognition is in fact a cognitive process with different stages. For example, the rise of perceptual cognition, that is, the process of perceptual cognizing, includes such stages as a sense organ’s getting into contact with its object and carrying out its own specific function by different cognitive organs/faculties/powers, the highest of which is the buddhi. However, for the Buddhist opponent, who advocates the theory of momentariness (kṣaṇikatva), the rise of the cognitive result is momentary, it has no duration in time, which means that we deal with a single cognitive event, indivisible into stages. For the Buddhist opponent, the state of a cognition’s coming into being and this cognition’s fully manifest state are not two separate states but the same momentary state.
The second argument of the Buddhist opponent for the identity of a pramāṇa and its result is that a valid cognition is caused by a mental copy (image, semblance) of the object to be cognized. A pramāṇa is this mental copy, which is a valid cognition (pramā) itself. We can object to this argument that even if this mental image had already been present in our psyche before the cognitive event occurred, it had been unconscious. Even if all mental images are in our psyche, not all of them become conscious pramā. An unconscious mental trace is not the same as a vivid conscious pramā, and a real karaṇa, being something different from the unconscious mental image, is needed to make this trace a conscious pramā.
What is the YD’s response to the Buddhist opponent? The response contains two arguments. Both of them rely on the basic premises of the Sāṃkhya doctrine. The first argument is the following: a pramāṇa and its result are different from one another because their substrata (adhikaraṇa) are different. A pramāṇa is located in the buddhi, which means that it is located in prakṛti, whereas the pramā, the result, is located in puruṣa. Prakṛti and puruṣa are the two ultimate, eternal, and fundamentally different principals of Sāṃkhya dualist ontology. A pramāṇa is a modification (vṛtti) of the buddhi (‘intellect,’ ‘discernment’), the highest and subtlest psychic organ, which is a product of prakṛti. As to pramā, a pramāṇa’s result, the author of the YD calls it the ‘favor’ (anugraha)Footnote 39 done for puruṣa by a pramāṇa.
Why does the difference of the substrata of a pramāṇa and its result prove that they are different from one another? It is because according to Sāṃkhya, any prakṛtic physical or mental phenomenon is a transformation of its substratum; it is this substratum itself, not anything else. The buddhi’s cognition is not a quality that is different from the buddhi itself, its substratum, or bearer. A pramāṇa is the buddhi itself. Unlike the buddhi, puruṣa does not undergo transformations and cannot assume the form of the object.
The second argument of the author of the YD is the following: the Buddhist opponent’s view that both a pramāṇa and its result are the same cognition (jñāna) that has the form of apprehension (adhigama-rūpa) is unproved. In the opinion of the author of the YD, not every cognition has the form of apprehension. A cognition cannot be an apprehension without puruṣa’s intelligence (pratyaya). A mere jñāna, without puruṣa’s intelligence, is not an adhigama. A mere jñāna is an unconscious modification of the buddhi; only thanks to puruṣa, this modification becomes a conscious adhigama, which is the cognitive result. The author of the YD holds that the buddhi can grasp different objects, for example, pots, acquiring their form, but only thanks to puruṣa a cognition achieved by the buddhi can become a conscious cognitive result. (Would modern Sāṃkhyas recognize that unconscious cognitions of the buddhi are similar to cognitions of artificial intelligence?).Footnote 40 According to Sāṃkhya teaching, prakṛti and all of its products, including the buddhi, are unconscious, while puruṣa is consciousness (cetanā). With this in mind, the Sāṃkhya proponent claims that nothing can be apprehended, that is, cognized consciously, without puruṣa’s intelligence (puruṣa-pratyaya). Thus, a pramāṇa, which is an unconscious modification of the buddhi, and its result, which is conscious thanks to puruṣa, are different from one another.
At the end of this polemic, the author of the YD attaches the Buddhist opponent’s objection that puruṣa does not exist.Footnote 41 He answers this objection by referring to SK 17, which is the kārikā presenting Sāṃkhya arguments for the existence of puruṣa (ātman).
Critical Evaluation of the Yuktidīpikā’s Position on the Relationship Between a Pramān.ṇa and Its Result
The response of Sāṃkhya to the Buddhist identification of a pramāṇa and its result was pioneering, and it probably sparked further debate. It does, however, evoke critical remarks. I will present them and assess whether the Yuktidīpikā’s position is Sāṃkhyan, that is, whether it agrees with Sāṃkhya teaching.
1. My first critical remark is that the YD’s response to the Buddhist identification of a pramāṇa and its result undercuts the Sāṃkhya theory of pramāṇas. Sāṃkhya accepts three pramāṇas: perception (dṛṣṭa, pratyakṣa), inference (anumāna), and reliable verbal testimony (āpta-vacana). Kārikās 4–6 of the SK together with classical Sāṃkhya commentaries on these kārikās present the three pramāṇas and their definitions. The YD’s position undercuts Sāṃkhya’s attempt to show a specific character of each of its three pramāṇas. If we accept, together with the author of the YD, that a pramāṇa is a modification of the buddhi that has the form of the object, the difference between particular pramāṇas will fade.
The YD’s understanding of a pramāṇa in this polemic agrees with YD’s interpretation of the expression trividhaṃ pramāṇam (“the threefold pramāṇa”) from SK 4. Among all extant Sāṃkhya texts from Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s Sāṃkhyakārikā till Aniruddha’s Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti, the YD is the only text that interprets trividhaṃ pramāṇam as stating that there is, in fact, only one pramāṇa, which is “sattva taking the form of the buddhi” (buddhi-lakṣaṇaṃ sattvam). The author of the YD directly rejects the view that there are three separate pramāṇas—perception, inference, and reliable verbal testimony (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 69.1–6).
Among the above-mentioned Sāṃkhya texts, there is one more text undercutting the specifics of each of the pramāṇas. This is Vācaspati Miśra’s TK, the last classical Sāṃkhya commentary. Giving a general definition (sāmānya-lakṣaṇa) of a pramāṇa in TK 4, he characterizes it as citta-vṛtti, the modification of the citta, by which the antaḥ-karaṇa (‘the internal instrument’), constituted by the three highest psychic organs (manas, ahaṃkāra, and buddhi), is meant. He distinguishes this modification from the cognitive result, pramā. In TK 5, Vācaspati describes perception as the sattvic modification (vṛtti) of the buddhi, distinguishing this pramāṇa from its result, which is called by him—like by the author of the YD—the ‘favor’ (anugraha) done for puruṣa by a pramāṇa.Footnote 42
Though Vācaspati—like the author of the YD—undercuts Sāṃkhya’s theory of pramāṇas by saying that a pramāṇa is a modification of a psychic organ, which entails that pramāṇas are not different from one another, he—unlike the author of the YD—never states directly that there is only one pramāṇa. Contrarily, Vācaspati states directly that there are three different pramāṇas (TK 4). The other classical Sāṃkhya commentaries, too, acknowledge three separate pramāṇas (see their commentaries on SK 4).
The YD’s position is in conflict with the Sāṃkhya theory of pramāṇas, and among Sāṃkhya texts taken into account in this study, it is the only text declaring such position. To substantiate that a pramāṇa and its result are different from one another, it is not at all necessary to take a standpoint undercutting Sāṃkhya’s theory of pramāṇas. The author of the YD could, for example, describe a pramā as the modification (vṛtti) of the buddhi that is influenced by puruṣa, and a pramāṇa as the necessary, specific and most important causal factor in the cognitive process, that is, in the process of achieving this or that particular type of pramā. Such understanding of a pramāṇa, an instrumental cause (karaṇa) of a pramā, follows from Sāṃkhya teaching. For example, in the case of perception (dṛṣṭa, pratyakṣa), the karaṇa could be described as the contact of a sense with its respective object, and in the case of reliable/authoritative verbal testimony (āpta-vacana), as a reliable/authoritative sentence (this follows from the Sāṃkhya epistemology presented in SK 4–8 together with the commentaries, as well as Kramadīpikā 22 and Sāṃkhyasūtras I, 88–91, 100–103, 108–113 together with Aniruddha’s Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti).
2. My next critical remark is as follows. The author of the YD claims that puruṣa is a substratum (adhikaraṇa), or locus (āśraya), of a valid cognitive result (pramā). According to Sāṃkhya, puruṣa does not undergo any changes. All changes are transformations (pariṇāma) of prakṛti (see SK 11, 19–20 together with the commentaries). From the Sāṃkhya perspective, it is hardly possible to satisfactorily explain how unchangeable puruṣa can be a substratum of changing cognitions.Footnote 43 Kumar observes, “Sāṃkhya-Yoga does not admit that the soul knows the objects directly or it is locus of knowledge” (1984, p. 1).
The YD’s view on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result and calling puruṣa a substratum (adhikaraṇa) / locus (āśraya) of a valid cognitive result highlights one of the basic problems of the Sāṃkhya system. This problem follows from its ontological dualism of puruṣa and prakṛti, two eternal (nitya), independent (svatantra, anāśrita), and fundamentally different principles (see SK 10–11 together with the commentaries; Tattvasamāsa and Kramadīpikā 1–3; Sāṃkhyasūtras and Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti I, 22; I, 61). Puruṣa is conscious (cetana), changeless (apariṇāmin), not an agent (akartṛ) / passive (udāsīna), and completely isolated from prakṛti and all its products (SK 11, 19, and 20 together with the commentaries; TK 18; Kramadīpikā 3; Sāṃkhyasūtras and Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti I, 145–146; I, 148; I, 160–164; Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti VI, 54). Prakṛti is unconscious (acetana) and active (kartṛ); it is the process of continuous transformation (pariṇāma) of three guṇas (SK 11, 16, 20 together with the commentaries; Kramadīpikā 1; Sāṃkhyasūtras and Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti I, 126–128; III, 58–62). This theory makes it difficult or even impossible to explain our experience of the prakṛtic world. Neither conscious but changeless puruṣa nor changing but unconscious prakṛti can experience the world, for being the experiencer requires both being conscious and being a subject of changing experiences. Does the buddhi become conscious under the influence of puruṣa, or is puruṣa a subject of these experiences? Sāṃkhya gives different answers to the question about a subject of changing experiences. The first one is that puruṣa experiences the world (see, for example, SK 17, 19–21, 55, 65–66). The second one is that our experiences are modifications of the buddhi (see, for example, SK 23, 62–63). The third one is that both the buddhi and puruṣa experience the world: the buddhi delivers its own experiences to puruṣa (SK 37). Sāṃkhya’s attempts to explain the role of the buddhi and puruṣa in experiencing the world and the interaction between them (that is, how they can influence one another) drew the attention of philosophers of other darśanas, who criticized the Sāṃkhya views,Footnote 44 and of many researchers.Footnote 45
Though Sāṃkhya has the above-mentioned difficulties with explaining our experiences of the world and establishing the experiencer, it, however, tries to avoid stating that there are real changes in puruṣa. The position of the author of the YD in the polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result implies that puruṣa is the real substratum of changing cognitions, which is unacceptable for Sāṃkhyas. It is worth noting that the author of the YD himself rejects this position in another place of his commentary. In the commentary on the 20th kārikā, he says that changing experiences of the buddhi are only figuratively ascribed to puruṣa, which is changeless. This happens because puruṣa and the buddhi stay in the vicinity (sannidhāna) of one another. Though puruṣa is the experiencer (bhoktṛ), it does not undergo any changes (Wezler and Motegi 1998, pp. 181.26–182.12). From this passage of the YD, it follows that puruṣa is not a substratum or locus of cognitions.Footnote 46
To demonstrate that Sāṃkhya does not acknowledge any real changes in puruṣa and therefore tries to avoid calling puruṣa a substratum or locus of changing experiences, I will refer to one more passage from classical Sāṃkhya commentaries. I have already referred to this passage from TK 5 in the previous subsection of my article, while pointing out the common ideas expressed by Vācaspati Miśra and by the author of the YD. Another likeness between the YD and the TK is that in both commentaries, the passage about the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result, calling the result the ‘favor’ (anugraha) done for puruṣa by a pramāṇa, says that the buddhi’s modifications are unconscious and therefore puruṣa, consciousness, is a necessary condition of a cognitive result. However, unlike the author of the YD, Vācaspati adds that puruṣa, not connected with any modifications of prakṛti, only seems to possess cognitions.
3. And one more critical remark. Though the author of the YD tries to contrast his position to that of the Buddhist opponent, by accepting that a pramāṇa is a cognition having the form of the object, he makes the Sāṃkhya view close to the view of the Buddhist opponent.
According to Sāṃkhya, the buddhi, the highest psychic organ, takes on the form of the object to be cognized.Footnote 47 We learn this from SK 36 with the commentaries. In this kārikā, Īśvarakṛṣṇa says that during a cognitive process, the psychic organs (indriya, manas, and ahaṃkāra) whose functioning precedes the buddhi’s modification (vṛtti) “put [the object that was grasped by them] upon the buddhi” (buddhau prayacchanti).
The author of the YD holds that such modification of the buddhi, considered by him as unconscious cognition (jñāna), is a pramāṇa, and its result, a pramā, is this modification transmitted to puruṣa in some way. According to both the YD’s author and the Buddhist opponent, a pramāṇa, first, is a cognition, second, this cognition has the form of the object to be cognized.
It is worth noting that Nyāya philosopher Jayanta Bhaṭṭa pointed out the similarity of the Sāṃkhya and Buddhist perspectives in his Nyāyamañjarī (Nyāyamañjarī 1969, pp. 69–70). He observes that in Sāṃkhya: a pramāṇa is a modification of the buddhi (buddhi-vṛtti) that has the form of the object (viṣayākāra); puruṣa becomes influenced (literally, ‘coloured’—uparakta) by the buddhi’s vṛtti; pramāṇa and its result have different substrata (adhikaraṇa), for a pramāṇa is in the buddhi whereas its result is in puruṣa.Footnote 48 Jayanta then concludes that the Sāṃkhya standpoint does not differ much from “the doctrine of cognition with the form” (sākāra-jñāna-vāda) of the Buddhists.Footnote 49
However, though there are conspicuous similarities between the Buddhist and Sāṃkhya positions, the deep difference between them becomes clear if we rely on the Sāṃkhya ontology of puruṣa, prakṛti, and prakṛti’s products. For the Buddhist opponent, who holds that a pramāṇa and its result are identical, also a pramā is a cognition having the form of the object. In Sāṃkhya, the difference of the substrata of a pramāṇa and its result claimed by the author of the YD excludes their identity. A pramāṇa is the buddhi’s vṛtti that has the form of the object, but this cognition cannot retain the same form after being transmitted to puruṣa. Puruṣa is fundamentally different from prakṛti and its products. Unlike the buddhi, puruṣa is changeless and unlimited. Therefore, unlike the buddhi and other prakṛti’s products, which change and have size, puruṣa does not assume any shapes.Footnote 50 To cite Harzer, “But the Sāṅkhya is a sākāravādin only to a certain extent, that is, the sense faculty assumes the form of the sense-content, or the sense-content is delivered up by the sense faculties so that the internal organ (antaḥkaraṇa) could perform its adhyavasāya, … . Consciousness, according to Sāṅkhya, stays distinct and does not take on an ākāra … . … In this respect the Sāṅkhya has to be labelled as a nirākāravādin. Apparently, the Sāṅkhya was both sākāravādin and nirākāravādin at the same time” (2006, p. 113, note 34).Footnote 51 In his commentary on the 20th kārikā, the author of the YD states directly that the buddhi takes on the form of the object (viṣaya-rūpa), but changeless puruṣa does not assume this form (Wezler and Motegi 1998, pp. 181.26–182.12).
Perspectives for Future Research
The YD may be helpful for understanding the position of Dignāga. In the YD’s polemic explored in this study, the Buddhist opponent, who is almost undoubtedly Dignāga, holds that a pramāṇa is a mental image of the object to be cognized, and a pramā is a cognition of this object. In the PS and PSV, in the famous passage on the identity of a pramāṇa and its result (chapter 1, kārikās 8cd–10), Dignāga presents two positions. The first one is the same as the standpoint of the Buddhist in the YD, namely, that a pramāṇa is a mental image of the object, and a pramā is this object’s cognition. The second position is that a pramāṇa is a cognition of the object, and a pramā, its result, is the self-awareness (svasaṃvitti, svasaṃvedana) of the object’s cognition.Footnote 52 The question whether these are two separate positions or not, and what Dignāga’s position is, is open.
In the YD, the Buddhist opponent states the first of these two positions only, and there is no mention of self-awareness. Does this confirm Kataoka’s opinion that for Dignāga, a pramāṇa is a mental image of the external object and a pramā is a cognition of this object (Kataoka 2016)? Or does this also evidence that since for Dignāga, self-awareness was an inseparable aspect of every cognition, there was no need to mention this aspect separately?Footnote 53
Conclusion
Sāṃkhyas’ Yuktidīpikā challenges the Buddhist claim that a means of valid cognition (pramāṇa) and its result (phala), a valid cognition (pramā), are identical to one another. The opponent the YD polemicizes against is most likely Dignāga: his arguments are Dignāga’s arguments as set forth by him in his PS and PSV. Sāṃkhya’s response to Dignāga was pioneering, being one of the two earliest answers to the Buddhists in the polemic on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result. (The other earliest response was provided by Kumārila Bhaṭṭa in the Ślokavārttika.)
In the discussion presented in the YD, the Buddhist opponent gives two arguments for the identity of a pramāṇa and its result. The first one is that the cognitive result, characterized by him as “having the form of apprehension” (adhigama-rūpa), is achieved through its own rise. The rise of the cognition (jñānasya utpattiḥ), interpreted as a pramāṇa which performs an operation (vyāpāra) from the worldly point of view, is the same as this cognition because it is this very cognition that arises. The second argument of the Buddhist opponent is that a pramāṇa is itself a cognition possessing the semblance (image, copy—nirbhāsa) of the object of valid cognition (prameya).
The Sāṃkhya proponent aptly questions Dignāga’s standpoint. He asks how there can be an instrument / instrumental cause (karaṇa) that produces valid cognition in that case. By asking this question, he argues that an instrument is necessary for getting a valid cognition (pramā), and if a pramāṇa, which is understood as an instrument (karaṇa) for achieving a valid cognitive result in Indian philosophy, is the same as the result, then we would be in the position of having no instrument that produces the result. Even if we accept, together with the Buddhist opponent, that the object’s mental image has been present in our psyche before the epistemic event, a real karaṇa, that is, a karaṇa being something distinct from this unconscious mental image, is necessary to make this image a conscious pramā.
The Sāṃkhya proponent also points out that the Buddhist opponent’s view that a pramāṇa and its result are the same cognition (jñāna) having the form of apprehension (adhigama-rūpa) is unproved. The author of the YD holds that not every cognition (jñāna) is an apprehension (adhigama). In his view, the opponent’s position does not satisfactorily explain the source of consciousness, which is what causes an unconscious mental image of the object of cognition (possessed by a pramāṇa) to become an apprehension, a conscious cognitive result.
The author of the YD presents his position, contrasting it with that of the Buddhist opponent. The Sāṃkhya proponent states that a pramāṇa and its result are different because their substrata (adhikaraṇa) are different: a pramāṇa is located in the buddhi, which is a product of prakṛti, whereas the pramā, its result, is located in puruṣa. In Sāṃkhya, stating this difference of the substrata of a pramāṇa and its result means a conspicuous difference between them: a pramāṇa is a modification (vṛtti) of the buddhi, which is the buddhi itself that assumed the form of the object, whereas puruṣa does not undergo any transformations and therefore cannot assume the object’s form. It is thanks to puruṣa, who is consciousness (cetanā), that a pramāṇa, which is an unconscious modification of the buddhi, becomes a pramā, a conscious cognitive result.
Though the YD’s position evokes several critical remarks, the pioneering input of the Sāṃkhya darśana into this polemic attests to Sāṃkhya’s importance for Indian epistemology. Sāṃkhya questioned the Buddhist position that a pramāṇa and its result are identical, and presented the alternative view. To fully understand Indian thought, which developed in polemics and through the mutual influence of its darśanas, we must consider Sāṃkhya’s contribution to it.
Notes
For example, on whether reliable verbal testimony (āpta-vacana, śabda), Sāṃkhya’s third pramāṇa, can be reduced to inference (anumāna). See YD 5 (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 87.14–17) and 6 (Wezler and Motegi 1998, pp. 100.10–105.9). The critical edition prepared by Wezler and Motegi is cited by page(s) and line(s); thus, 100.10 means page 100, line 10. Harzer writes that the YD was created largely as a response to Dignāga’s criticism of Sāṃkhya and an attempt to reform and modernize its system, especially epistemology, to make it less vulnerable to the criticisms of its opponents (2006, pp. 16–19).
As I do not read Tibetan, I rely on Steinkellner’s reconstruction of the Sanskrit text and Hattori’s English translation from Tibetan.
On this matter, which requires further research, see Mejor (2004).
For example, on the Buddhist theories of apoha and momentariness—see Nyāyavārttika II, 2, 66 and III, 2, 14, respectively.
Philosophers of different darśanas responded to Dignāga. Pre-Dharmakīrti philosophers polemicizing with Dignāga are mentioned by Hattori—see PS (1), (1968, pp. 15–16).
Given the enormous and rapidly growing number of publications in different languages available today, it is hardly possible to be sure about the current state of the research.
It consists of two lines in the edition prepared by Wezler and Motegi (1998, pp. 77.20–78.1–2).
Bandyopadhyay argues that not only Sāṃkhyas’ position entails the identity of a pramāṇa and its result. At the beginning of his article, he says, “The Sāṃkhya-Yoga, the Advaita Vedānta and some Mīmāṃsakas also, despite their possible disclaimer, finally cannot dispense with the relation of identity in one way or other” (1979, p. 45). An evaluation of the applicability of Bandyopadhyay’s opinion to darśanas other than Sāṃkhya lies beyond my study.
Kondō also notices that according to Yogasūtrabhāṣya I, 7, like in this passage of the YD, a pramāṇa belongs to the psychic apparatus, which is a product of prakṛti, whereas its result, pramā, belongs to puruṣa.
This Harzer’s observation will be cited below, in the section “Critical Evaluation …”.
In the YD, the words of the Sāṃkhya proponent are introduced by ucyate (“it is said”), and the words of the opponent are introduced by āha (“[he] speaks”). I do not translate ucyate and āha.
After Wezler and Motegi, editors of the YD, I italicized the SK word “perception” the YD comments on.
In this article, I translate Sanskrit terms jñāna, pramāṇa, and pramā as ‘cognition’, ‘a means of valid cognition’, and ‘valid cognition’, respectively. I am aware of the difficulties in finding their accurate English equivalents. Pramāṇa can also be translated as ‘a means of knowledge’, and pramā as ‘knowledge’. To mention only some of the many important publications discussing these Sanskrit terms: Bilimoria (1985), Mohanty (2001), Matilal (2002), Balcerowicz (2009, pp. 139–144, note 4), and Ganeri (2018).
I am not sure about the meaning of “both” (ubhaya) and present here two interpretations that seem possible to me. The first one, proposed by Hattori, is that “both” refers to Yogācāras and Sautrāntikas. Hattori notices that the theory “that the sākāra cognition is both pramāṇa-phala and pramāṇa” we deal with in Dignāga’s PS and PSV (chapter 1, kārikā 8cd) “is amenable to both schools (ubhaya-naya)” of Buddhism. Hattori mentions the YD fragment from our polemic that presents this Buddhist theory (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 77.11–15). See Hattori’s note to his translation of the PS with PSV: PS (1), (1968, p. 98), note 1.55. The second interpretation is that Buddhists and Sāṃkhyas are what is meant by “both” in this context. In this case, the translation is as follows: “The discussion refers to the well-known [opposing] positions of both [that is, of Buddhists and Sāṃkhyas].”
ucyate: … upāttaviṣayāṇām indriyāṇāṃ vṛttyupanipāti sattvodrekād arajastamasaṃ yat prakāśarūpaṃ [yad dṛṣṭam iti yāvat] tad dṛṣṭam / pratyakṣam ity arthaḥ / etat pramāṇam / anena yaś cetanāśakter anugrahas tat phalam / prameyāḥ śabdādayaḥ / evam uttaratrāpi pramāṇaphalabhāvo draṣṭavyaḥ /
āha: kiṃ punar idaṃ pramāṇāt phalam arthāntaram āhosvid anarthāntaram /
<ucyate(?):> <ka>thaṃ tāvad bhavitum arhati /
anarthāntaram ity āha / kasmāt / adhigamarūpatvāt / adhigamarūpaṃ hi jñānaṃ, tasyotpattyaivādhigato ’rtha iti kutaḥ phalabheda iti /
ucyate: karaṇabhāva idānīṃ kathaṃ syāt /
āha: karaṇabhāvas tu prasiddhivaśāt / viṣayanirbhāsā hi jñānasyotpattiḥ / adhigamarūpāpi loke savyāpāreva <pratītir iti(?)> kalpanayā karaṇabhāvo ’bhyupagamyate na paramārthataḥ /
ucyate: phalasyārthāntarabhāvaḥ adhikaraṇabhedāt / buddhyāśrayaṃ hi pramāṇam adhyavasāyākhyaṃ puruṣāśrayaṃ phalam anugrahalakṣaṇam / na ca bhinnādhikaraṇayor ekatvam arhati bhavitum / yat tūktam adhigamarūpatvāj jñānam eva phalam iti tad anupapannam / kasmāt / asiddhatvāt / yathaiva hi ghaṭādayo ’rthā jñānam antareṇa na tadrūpā nātadrūpā iti na śakyaṃ pratipattum evaṃ jñānam api puruṣapratyayam antareṇa na viṣayarūpaṃ nāviṣayarūpam / tathā ca śāstram—
tasmāt tatsaṃyogād acetanaṃ cetanāvad iva liṅgam / (SK 20ab)
iti vakṣyati / ataḥ puruṣapratyayam antareṇa jñānam adhigamarūpam iti sāṃkhyaṃ praty asiddham etat / ubhayapakṣaprasiddhena ca vyavahāraḥ / puruṣābhāvād ayuktam iti cen na uttaratra pratipādanāt / “saṅghātaparārthatvāt” (SK 17a) ity atra puruṣāstitvaṃ pratipādayiṣyāmaḥ / tasmāt siddham adhyavasāyapramāṇavādinaḥ pramāṇāt phalam arthāntaram iti / (Wezler and Motegi 1998, pp. 77.6–78.12.)
The YD editors Wezler and Motegi use [ ] to mark their deletions and < > to mark their additions and corrections. I do not translate parts of the text deleted by the editors.
For a translation, Sanskrit text, and analysis of the whole Ślokavārttika chapter (IV) devoted to perception (pratyakṣa), see Taber (2005).
Kārikās 8cd–10 in PS (2), 2005. In the main text of my article, the numbers of the chapters and kārikās are given according to Hattori’s translation: PS (1), 1968. In the footnotes, the numbers of the kārikās are given according to Steinkellner’s reconstruction: PS (2), 2005.
Kārikās 19cd–20 in PS (2), 2005.
Kārikā 42 in PS (2), 2005.
I do not know Chinese; I rely on Aiyaswami Sastri’s reconstruction in Sanskrit and on Takakusu’s French translation.
According to Acharya, Vācaspati composed his famous works, including the TK, in the second half of the 10th c. (2006, p. XXVIII).
Sāṃkhya texts from Īśvarakṛṣṇa’s SK till Aniruddha’s Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti express the same system of philosophy. The next text Sāṃkhyapravacanabhāṣya (ca. 1550–1600 ce) by Vijñāna Bhikṣu, which is a commentary on the Sāṃkhyasūtras, treats Sāṃkhya not as an independent darśana but as part of the Vedānta system of this philosopher. On Vijñāna’s attitude toward Sāṃkhya and its place in Vijñāna’s hierarchy of teachings, see Larson (1987, pp. 35–41) and Nicholson (2014, pp. 84–123). Nicholson’s (2014) excellent monograph explains Vijñāna’s role in Indian philosophy and culture, his attitude toward different darśanas, and his interpretation of āstika darśanas as complementary ones. Sāṃkhya texts that have been composed since the time of Vijñāna need to be examined by researchers (see Krishna, 2006, pp. 97–120). The questions whether they contain important material not found in earlier works and whether they are Sāṃkhyan should be answered. The revival of Sāṃkhya-Yoga by Hariharānanda Āraṇya (1869–1947) and his followers is worth special attention (see Jacobsen’s and Jakubczak’s publications, of which I mention only two: Jacobsen 2018; Jakubczak 2020).
The YD’s explanations of the kārikās are usually more extensive than the explanations of the kārikās or sūtras by other Sāṃkhya commentaries, which is why when citing the YD, I also give the page and line numbers of Wezler’s and Motegi’s edition besides the numbers of the kārikās.
The author of the YD refers to the rule formulated in sūtra III, 3, 117 of Pāṇini’s Aṣṭādhyāyī (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2002, p. 546). According to this sūtra, the kṛt suffix lyuṭ can be added after a verbal root to derive nouns that denote instruments (karaṇa) and loci (adhikaraṇa). Lyuṭ is the technical term for the suffix ana—see the rule formulated in Aṣṭādhyāyī VII, 1, 1, by which the suffix yu is replaced with the suffix ana (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2003, pp. 1–3). Thus, the word pramāṇa (literally, ‘a measure’) is derived from pra-√mā (literally, ‘to measure’), to which the suffix ana is added to form a noun that denotes an instrument (pramāṇa is a measuring instrument).
pramīyate ’neneti pramāṇam / karaṇa-sādhano lyuṭ /
For this passage’s translation and analysis, see my translation and reconstruction of the polemic in the previous and following section, respectively.
Jayanta’s dates are given according to Potter (1977, pp. 6, 9).
Jayanta understood a pramāṇa, which is a karaṇa, as a collection (sāmagrī) of causal factors (Nyāyamañjarī 1969, pp. 31–38).
The Buddhist view that a pramāṇa and its result are identical evokes the question how this view can be applied to inference (anumāna). Buddhists accept two pramāṇas—perception and inference. Perception (pratyakṣa) is a means of valid cognition of the momentary, unique particulars (sva-lakṣaṇa, ‘own feature,’ ‘that which is its own attribute’), which are the only reals. Perception is understood first of all as pure sensation, free from conceptual constructions (kalpanā) and linguistic elements. Inference (anumāna) is a means of valid cognition of the universals (sāmānya-lakṣaṇa, ‘common feature’), which are mental constructs. The Buddhists claim that a pramāṇa and its result are identical because a pramāṇa is itself a cognition having the image/copy of the object to be cognized. How should the object’s image/copy that is a pramāṇa causing a valid cognitive result (pramā) should be interpreted in the case of inference, whose object to be cognized is sāmānya-lakṣaṇa? How can cognition take the form of the object to be cognized in the case of inference? I will cite the explanation proposed by Stcherbatsky: “When we, e.g., infer the presence of fire from the presence of smoke, we imagine the fire, it is prima facie a fire in general. But the second step in this act of cognition will be to imagine it as a real fire, a possible object of purposive action, a possible sense-datum. Thus the particular sense-datum will also be an object cognized ultimately through inference, but indirectly. The result (pramāṇa-phala) of both modes of cognition … is the same …” (Stcherbatsky 1962, p. 38, note 3). A critical analysis of the Buddhist view lies beyond the scope of my study.
Stcherbatsky’s monumental publication Buddhist Logic includes his translations of passages from Buddhist and Brahmanical philosophers in which they discuss the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result (Stcherbatsky 1962, pp. 341–400). As to Brahmanical philosophers, Stcherbatsky translated the passages from Vācaspati Miśra’s Mīmāṃsā work Nyāyakaṇikā and from Udayana’s Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkāpariśuddhi.
In the PS and PSV, the term adhigama appears also in section 6 of chapter 1, in the Vṛtti’s commentary on the 9th kārikā—see footnote 36, in which I cite this kārikā together with part of the commentary on it. We also find the term adhigama, for example, in Śaṅkarasvāmin’s Nyāyapraveśa 4.3, where it occurs, like in the YD, in the compound adhigama-rūpa.
In this polemic, a cognition (jñāna), that is, a valid cognitive result, and “the rise of the cognition” (jñānasya utpattiḥ) are both described as adhigama-rūpa (‘having the form of apprehension’) by the Buddhist opponent (see Wezler and Motegi 1998, pp. 77.14 and 77.18, respectively). It is because for him, a cognitive result, jñāna, and that through which it is achieved, jñānasya utpattiḥ, are not different from one another. In his opinion, the rise of a cognition is the same as this cognition because it is this very cognition that arises. On jñānasya utpattiḥ, see footnote 37 below.
Dignāga expresses this argument in section 6 of the first chapter of his PS and PSV, kārikā 9. He polemicizes there with Mīmāṃsakas. Cf. the YD passage, Wezler and Motegi (1998, p. 77.14–15), to the citation from the PS and PSV I attach below. Dignāga argues that a pramāṇa and its result are identical. I cite the kārikā together with part of the commentary on it (namely, with the commentary on 9cd). This is Hattori’s translation of the text (I used the boldface type to highlight the kārikā)—see PS (1), (1968, pp. 68–69):
9a. if one holds to “the rise of cognition” (buddhi-janman) [as a definition of perception]—
9b. a result that is different [from this means] could not be found.
9cd. inasmuch as the cognition itself has arisen, there would be no result other than that [cognition].
That which results from the means of cognition is the apprehension (adhigama) [of an object], which, however, is nothing other than the cognition (buddhi) itself. Therefore, were the cognition [itself to be regarded as] a means of cognition, there could be no result [to be distinguished from the means of cognition].
In Steinkellner’s reconstruction of the PS and PSV, this is kārikā 42—see PS (2), (2005, pp. 22–23). Steinkellner italicized parts of the text not attested in Sanskrit sources and retranslated from Tibetan; he used the subscript + to indicate vowel sandhis between the retranslated words and attested words. I attach his reconstruction together with my translation:
buddhijanma yadīṣyeta
phalam anyan na labhyate |
buddhāv eva hi jātāyāṃ tato ’nyan na phalaṃ bhavet || 42 ||
adhigamo hi phalam avasitam. sa cet pramāṇam, buddher ananyatvāt phala+abhāvaḥ.
If “the rise of cognition” (buddhi-janman) is accepted [by you as part of your definition of perception, which is given in Mīmāṃsāsūtras I, 1, 4],
a [cognitive] result that is different [from the pramāṇa causing it] is not found.
As the cognition (buddhi) itself (eva) has arisen, the result cannot be different from that [i.e., from the rise of the cognition].
It is because apprehension (adhigama) is acknowledged as the result. If [we say that] it [i.e., apprehension] is the pramāṇa, since it [i.e., the pramāṇa] is not different from the cognition (buddhi), there is no [cognitive] result [that is different from the pramāṇa causing it].
The term jñānasya utpattiḥ appearing in the YD probably has its roots in the compound buddhi-janman from the Mīmāṃsāsūtras’ definition of perception, given in sūtra I, 1, 4. This compound, which can be interpreted in different ways, was widely discussed by Indian philosophers. In Mīmāṃsā, it is considered in Śābarabhāṣya, Ślokavārttika, and other texts—see Taber (2005, pp. 17–15, 66–70). In the Vaiśeṣikasūtras, too, the definition of perception speaks about perception as the cognition that arises, though the word “cognition” is omitted—see Taber (2005, p. 188, note 55). It is quite probable that both the Mīmāṃsāsūtras and Vaiśeṣikasūtras understood perception not as a karaṇa producing a valid cognitive result but as a process of cognizing that arises due to appropriate factors. See also the Nyāyasūtras’ (I, 1, 4) definition of perception, which describes perception as the cognition (jñāna) that arose (utpanna). In the PS and PSV, the meaning of the compound buddhi-janman from the Mīmāṃsā definition of perception is discussed in chapter 1, section 6, kārikās 6b and 9–10 (kārikās 39b and 42–43 in PS (2), 2005). See footnote 36, in which I attach kārikā 9 from section 6 of chapter 1.
Cf. the YD passage, Wezler and Motegi (1998, p. 77.17–19), to the PS and PSV passage. I cite the PS, chapter 1, kārikā 8cd, together with part of the commentary. Hattori’s English translation runs as follows—see PS (1), (1968, p. 28):
8cd. [we call the cognition itself] “pramāṇa” [literally, a means of cognizing], because it is [usually] conceived to include the act [of cognizing], although primarily it is a result.
Here we do not admit, as the realists do, that the resulting cognition (pramāṇa-phala) differs from the means of cognition (pramāṇa). The resulting cognition arises bearing in itself the form of the cognized object and [thus] is understood to include the act [of cognizing] (savyāpāra). For this reason, it is metaphorically called pramāṇa, the means of cognition, although it is [ultimately speaking] devoid of activity (vyāpāra).
I attach also Steinkellner’s reconstruction into Sanskrit (see PS [2], 2005, pp. 3–4) together with my translation:
savyāpārapratītatvāt pramāṇaṃ phalam eva sat || 8 ||
na hy atra bāhyakānām iva pramāṇād arthāntaraṃ phalam. tasyaiva tu phalabhūtasya jñānasya viṣayākāratayā utpattyā savyāpārapratītiḥ. tām upādāya pramāṇatvam upacaryate nirvyāpāram api sat.
[A valid cognition] is [called] pramāṇa because it is considered as that which performs an operation (savyāpāra) [from the worldly point of view]; [however, from the ultimate point of view,] there is (sat) only the result (phala).
Unlike those who are “external”, we do not [accept] that the result is different from the means of valid cognition (pramāṇa). But as the rise (utpatti) of that cognition which is the result is [itself] a [mental] form of the object (viṣayākāratā), it is considered as that which performs an operation (savyāpāra). Because of it [that is, because of its rise], [the result] is figuratively called pramāṇa, although [from the ultimate point of view,] there is (sat) [only the result] devoid of [any] operation (nirvyāpāra).
In this PSV passage, the word viṣayākāratā appears. A marginal note of two YD manuscripts is worth attention. It says that “being a pramāṇa is indeed being the form of the object” (viṣayākārataiva pramāṇatvam)—see Wezler and Motegi (1998, p. 77, note [1]). This comment explains how a pramāṇa is understood by the Buddhist opponent.
PS and PSV 8cd–11ab was translated by Dreyfus and Lindtner (1989, pp. 36–37). Their translation is based on Hattori’s edition of these texts, published in PS (1), 1968. Most of PS and PSV 8cd–12 was translated by Kellner (2010), who cites Steinkellner’s reconstruction PS (2), 2005 and takes into account also the Tibetan translations, Jinendrabuddhi’s Pramāṇasamuccayaṭīkā, and other important sources. In this article, Kellner presents a careful and detailed analyses of Dignāga’s exposition of the relationship between a pramāṇa and its phala. The most recent translation known to me is in Yiannopoulos’ doctoral dissertation. The dissertation contains a translation of PS and PSV 2–16 (2020, pp. 505–515); the kārikā numbers are given according to Steinkellner’s reconstruction: PS (2), 2005. Yiannopoulos writes that the translation was done by him in the co-authorship with J. Dunne (2020, p. 505). In his dissertation, Yiannopoulos provides a thorough analysis of Dignāga’s and his followers’ view on the relationship between a pramāṇa and its result. His main focus is the position of Dharmakīrti (2020, pp. 157–230).
On the buddhi’s cognitions and the role of puruṣa, see Larson (1983).
The Buddhist does not acknowledge unchanging and everlasting ātman/puruṣa.
I also refer to this passage from TK 5 below, in the next subsection of this paper (presenting my next critical remark).
Ślokavārttika IV, 67, for example, says that ātman is the substratum (āśraya) of cognition (see Taber 2005, p. 74). In Mīmāṃsā and in Nyāya, cognition is a quality (guṇa) of ātman, which is the substance (dravya) cognition resides in, and ātman can also exist without its qualities. Such theory, however, is alien to Sāṃkhya.
I mention only several of their studies: Catalina (1968, pp. 61–88), Bastow (1978), Larson (1979, pp. 167–176; 1983, pp. 219–233; 1987, pp. 73–83), Kumar (1984, pp. 1–8, 21–32), Parrott (1985; 1986), Burke (1988), Murakami (1999), Burley (2007, pp. 77–81, 124–132, 150–162; Burley gives new interpretations of central Sāṃkhya-Yoga conceptions, which are contrary to the received interpretations), Łucyszyna (2011), Jakubczak (2013, pp. 102–106, 115–168, 211–227).
Cf. Vijñānabhikṣu’s Sāṃkhyapravacanabhāṣya on Sāṃkhyasūtras I, 87. Vijñāna says that a pramāṇa is a vṛtti of the buddhi and is thus located in the buddhi, whereas a pramā, the result of a pramāṇa, is located in puruṣa. He further states, however, that a pramā only seems to be located in puruṣa because puruṣa cannot undergo any changes. According to Vijñāna, changeless puruṣa does not take on the form of the object and is not a real substratum of changing cognitions. Puruṣa is merely a witness of experiences. Vijñāna explains that the buddhi is reflected in puruṣa as an object is mirrored in water—the buddhi throws its reflection in puruṣa without causing any real transformations in him. Though Vijñānabhikṣu (whose texts are beyond the scope of my study) treats Sāṃkhya as part of his own Vedānta system and not as an independent system of thought, he gives valuable explanations of many Sāṃkhya conceptions.
It is difficult, however, to imagine the buddhi’s assuming the form of the object in the case, for example, of fire in general. The result of inference (anumāna) is fire in general, not a concrete fire.
It is most likely that the YD’s polemic explored in this study was the source of Jayanta Bhaṭṭa’s account of the Sāṃkhya view of a pramāṇa. He illustrates Sāṃkhya’s view that a pramāṇa is a modification of the buddhi by giving the Sāṃkhya definition of perception. This definition, as well as his observations that I mention here, has conspicuous parallels with the presentation of the Sāṃkhya position in the YD.
On whether the Buddhist epistemologists adopted the concept of ākāra from Sāṃkhya, see Kellner (2016, pp. 128, 148–149).
YD 17 cites “the followers of Vārṣagaṇya” (vārṣagaṇāḥ), a teacher of preclassical (that is, pre-kārikā) Sāṃkhya, who say that puruṣa, “possessed of the modification of the buddhi” (buddhivṛttyā āviṣṭaḥ), follows it (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 171.12–14). Their view may be interpreted as claiming that not only the buddhi but also puruṣa takes on the form of the object. Such interpretation of the view of the followers of Vārṣagaṇya is given by Frauwallner, who writes, “[I]t had been taught without any scruple that like the sense-organs and the faculty of knowledge (buddhiḥ), the soul also assumed the form of the concerned object and knows the object concerned” (Frauwallner 1973, p. 312). However, it is necessary to be cautious in interpreting this citation. It is not said there how exactly puruṣa follows the buddhi’s modification; the citation could mean that puruṣa follows the buddhi’s vṛtti in some other way than by assuming its form. Assessing Frauwallner’s interpretation of this citation, Kellner observes that it does not follow from this citation that puruṣa takes on the form of the object (Kellner 2016, p. 145). Right after citing the followers of Vārṣagaṇya, the YD attaches two other stanzas (their source has not been identified yet) that may seem to imply that puruṣa assumes the form of the object, transmitted to puruṣa by the buddhi (Wezler and Motegi 1998, p. 171.15–18). Frauwallner gives his interpretation of these two stanzas too (1973, p. 312). Kellner (2016, p. 147) writes that they do not allow us to conclude that puruṣa and the buddhi take on the object’s form. Kellner provides a valuable, pioneering, and cautious analysis of the view of the followers of Vārṣagaṇya and of the above-mentioned stanzas (2016, pp. 144–147). This view and the stanzas need further research.
On the concept of ākāra in pre-kārikā Sāṃkhya, see Kellner (2016). She comes to the conclusion that the Ṣaṣṭitantra commentaries “contain the view that the sense transforms into the form of the object”, and that neither the Ṣaṣṭitantra nor its commentaries provide evidence that puruṣa or other cognitive organs take on the form of the object (Kellner 2016, pp. 147–148). Thus in preclassical Sāṃkhya, unlike in the SK and its classical commentaries, only sense organs assume the form of the object.
Researchers propose different interpretations of svasaṃvitti, or svasaṃvedana, in Dignāga and his followers. See, for example, the opposing interpretations of Kellner (2010) and Yiannopoulos (2020, pp. 370–485). According to the Buddhists, svasaṃvitti, or svasaṃvedana, is a cognition revealing our mental states, including valid cognitions, and it is not separate from these states. The Buddhists hold that every cognition is self-illuminating: a cognition of an object and a cognition of this object’s cognition are not two distinct cognitions but two forms/aspects of the same cognition. In this paper, I accept the translation of the terms svasaṃvitti and svasaṃvedana as “self-awareness”. Exploring the Buddhist notion of svasaṃvitti (svasaṃvedana) is beyond my study.
In the polemic against the Buddhist, the author of the YD argues that a cognition (jñāna) cannot be an apprehension (adhigama) without puruṣa’s intelligence (pratyaya). This does not evidence that the author of the YD thinks that the opponent considers a cognitive result as devoid of svasaṃvitti (svasaṃvedana). The author of the YD is brilliantly acquainted with Dignāga’s thought. By “puruṣa’s intelligence” (puruṣa-pratyaya), he means consciousness. According to Sāṃkhya, prakṛti and all of its products, including the buddhi, whose modification (vṛtti) is an ascertainment (adhyavasāya), and the ahaṃkāra (literally, ‘the I-maker’), which is responsible for self-awareness, are unconscious, whereas puruṣa is consciousness (cetanā). Nothing can be apprehended, that is, cognized consciously, without puruṣa. Neither self-awareness nor ascertainment of the object of valid cognition (prameya) are conscious without puruṣa; there is no pramā, a conscious cognitive result, without puruṣa. Sāṃkhya distinguishes between consciousness, puruṣa, and self-awareness, which is produced by ahaṃkāra. The author of the YD criticizes the Buddhist opponent not for his not accepting the self-awareness of cognitions but for his not accepting consciousness, which is, according to Sāṃkhya, eternal, immutable, and transcendent.
References
Primary sources and abbreviations
Aṣṭādhyāyī. The Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini. In 6 vol. Ed. and transl. by Rama Nath Sharma. Vol. III: English translation of adhyāyas two and three with Sanskrit text, transliteration, word-boundary, anuvṛtti, vṛtti, explanatory notes, derivational history of examples, and indices (2002). Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers (2nd ed.). Vol. VI: English translation of adhyāyas seven and eight with Sanskrit text, transliteration, word-boundary, anuvṛtti, vṛtti, explanatory notes, derivational history of examples, and indices (2003). Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers.
Jayamaṅgalā. (1) Jayamaṅgalā (Śrī Śaṅkarācāryaviracitā Jayamaṅgalā nāma Sāṁkhyasaptatiṭīkā) (1926). Edited by Haradatta Sarma. With an introduction by Gopi Nath Kaviraj. Narendra Nath Law. (2) Sāṃkhyakārikā of Śrīmad Īśvarakṛṣṇa with the Māṭharavṛtti of Māṭharācārya and the Jayamaṅgalā of Śrī Śaṅkara (1970). Edited by Viṣṇuprasāda Śarman [Māṭharavṛtti] and Satkāriśarman Vaṅgīya [Jayamaṅgalā]. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office (2nd ed.).
Kramadīpikā (or Tattvasamāsasūtravṛtti). Sāṃkhya-saṅgraha. A collection of the works of Sāṃkhya philosophy (1920). Edited by V. P. Dvivedin (pp. 131–149). Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
Māṭharavṛtti—see Jayamaṅgalā (2).
Nyāyamañjarī. Nyāyamañjarī of Jayantabhaṭṭa with Ṭippaṇī—Nyāyasaurabha by the Editor (1969). Critically edited by K. S. Varadacharya. Vol. I. Oriental Research Institute.
Nyāyapraveśa (or Nyāyapraveśakasūtra)—see Balcerowicz (1995, pp. 72–77).
Nyāyavārttika. Nyāyabhāṣyavārttika of Bhāradvāja Uddyotakara (1997). Edited by Anantalal Thakur. Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā. Nyāyavārttikatātparyaṭīkā of Vācaspati Miśra (1996). Edited by Anantalal Thakur. Indian Council of Philosophical Research.
Pramāṇasamuccaya (PS) with its autocommentary Pramāṇasamuccayavṛtti (PSV), chapter 1, “Perception” (pratyakṣa). (1) Dignāga, On Perception, being the Pratyakṣapariccheda of Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya from the Sanskrit fragments and Tibetan versions (1968). Translated and annotated by M. Hattori. Harvard University Press. (2) Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya, chapter 1. A hypothetical reconstruction of the Sanskrit text with the help of the two Tibetan translations on the basis of the hitherto known Sanskrit fragments and the linguistic materials gained from Jinendrabuddhi’s Ṭīkā. (April 2005). By E. Steinkellner. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/IKGA/PDF/forschung/buddhismuskunde/dignaga_PS_1.pdf; Steinkellner, E. (January 2014). Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya, chapter 1. A revision of the Sanskrit text. Retrieved May 7, 2022, from https://www.oeaw.ac.at/fileadmin/Institute/IKGA/PDF/digitales/Dignaga_PS_1_revision.pdf
Sāṃkhyakārikā (SK). Īśvarakṛṣṇa: Sāṃkhyakārikā (1998). Edited by F. Ruzsa. Retrieved May 5, 2022, from http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/1_sanskr/6_sastra/3_phil/samkhya/isvskaru.htm
Sāṃkhyakārikābhāṣya (or Gauḍapādabhāṣya). The Sāṅkhya Kārikā with an exposition called Candrikā by Nārāyaṇa Tīrtha, and Gauḍapādācārya’s commentary (1883). Edited by Becanarama Tripathi. Messrs. Braj B. Das & Co.
Sāṃkhyapravacanabhāṣya. Sāṃkhya-Pravacana-Bhāṣya or Commentary on the Exposition of the Sāṅkhya Philosophy by Vijñānabhikṣu (1895). Edited by R. Garbe. Publication Agent of Harvard University.
Sāṃkhyasaptativṛtti. Sāṃkhya-Saptati-Vṛtti (V1) (1973). Edited by E. A. Solomon. Gujarat University.
Sāṃkhyasūtras (or Sāṃkhyapravacanasūtras). Aniruddha’s commentary and the original parts of Vedāntin Mahādeva’s commentary to the Sāṃkhya Sūtras (1888). Edited with indices by R. Garbe. Asiatic Society of Bengal.
Sāṃkhyasūtravṛtti (or Sāṃkhyapravacanasūtravṛtti)—see Sāṃkhyasūtras.
Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī (or Tattvakaumudī; TK). Sankhyatatwa Koumudi by Bachaspati Misra. Edited with a commentary by Taranatha Tarkavachaspati. Sucharu Press.
Sāṃkhyavṛtti. Sāṃkhya-Vṛtti (V2) (1973). Edited by E. A. Solomon. Gujarat University.
Ślokavārttika (or Mīmāṃsāślokavārttika), chapter IV devoted to perception (pratyakṣa)—see Taber (2005).
Tattvakaumudī (TK)—see Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī.
Tattvasamāsa (or Tattvasamāsasūtra, or Sāṃkhyatattvasamāsa). Sāṃkhya-saṅgraha. A collection of the works of Sāṃkhya philosophy (1920). Edited by V. P. Dvivedin (pp. 117–118). Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.
The commentary that survived in the Chinese translation of Paramārtha. (1) La Sāṃkhyakārikā étudiée à la lumière de sa version chinoise (II) par M. J. Takakusu. Traité sur les «Septante d’or» (Suvarṇasaptati) ou Traité sur la philosophie Sāṃkhya (Sāṃkhyaśāstra) traduit par Paramārtha (1904). Bulletin de l’Ecole Française d’Extrême-Orient, 4, 978–1064. (2) Suvarṇasaptati Śāstra: Sāṅkhya-Kārikā-Saptati of Īśvara-Kṛṣṇa with a commentary (1944). Reconstructed into Sanskrit from the Chinese translation of Paramārtha and edited with English notes, introduction and appendices by N. Aiyaswami Sastri. Tirumalai-Tirupati Devasthanams Press.
Yuktidīpikā (YD)—see Wezler & Motegi (1998).
Other literature
Acharya, D. (2006). Introduction. In D. Acharya (Ed.), Vācaspatimiśra’s Tattvasamīkṣā: The earliest commentary on Maṇḍanamiśra’s Brahmasiddhi. Critically edited with an introduction and critical notes (pp. VII–CXXVI). Franz Steiner Verlag.
Balcerowicz, P. (Trans. & ed.). Śaṅkarasvāmin: Nyāya-praveśa—“Wprowadzenie w logikę” (1995, 1996). Opracował, przełożył z sanskrytu i opatrzył komentarzem P. Balcerowicz. Część I. Studia Indologiczne, 2, 39–87. Część II. Studia Indologiczne, 3, 5–47.
Balcerowicz, P. (2009). Jaina epistemology in historical and comparative perspective. Critical edition and English translation of logical-epistemological treatises: Nyāyâvatāra, Nyāyâvatāra-vivṛti and Nyāyâvatāra-ṭippaṇa with introduction and notes. Vol. 1, 2. Motilal Banarsidass.
Bandyopadhyay, N. (1979). The Buddhist theory of relation between pramā and pramāṇa. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 7(1), 43–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02561252
Bastow, D. (1978). An attempt to understand Sāṃkhya-Yoga. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 5(3), 191–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00161263
Bhattacharyya, H. M. (1939). Jaina critique of the Sāṃkhya and the Mīmāṃsā theories of the Self in relation to knowledge. The Jaina Antiquary, 5(1), 21–25.
Bilimoria, P. (1985). Jñāna and pramā: The logic of knowing—a critical appraisal. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 13(1), 73–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00208528
Bronkhorst, J. (1990). Vārttika. Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für Indische Philosophie, 34, 123–146.
Bronkhorst, J. (Trans. & ed.). (2019). A śabda reader. Language in classical Indian thought. Columbia University Press.
Burke, B. D. (1988). Transcendence in classical Sāṃkhya. Philosophy East and West, 38(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/1398948
Burley, M. (2007). Classical Sāṃkhya and Yoga: An Indian metaphysics of experience. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Catalina, F. V. (1968). Study of the self concept of Sāṅkhya-Yoga philosophy. Munshiram Manoharlal.
Chattopadhyay, N. K. (1979). Indian philosophy—its exposition in the light of Vijñānabhikṣu’s Bhāṣya and Yogavārttika: A modern approach. Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar.
Dreyfus, G., & Lindtner, C. (1989). The Yogācāra philosophy of Dignāga and Dharmakīrti. Studies in Central & East Asian Religions, 2, 27–52.
Frauwallner, E. (1973). History of Indian philosophy. Vol. 1: The philosophy of the Veda and of the Epic—The Buddha and the Jina—The Sāṃkhya and the classical Yoga-system. Translated from original German by V. M. Bedekar (1st ed.). Motilal Banarsidass.
Ganeri, J. (2018). Epistemology from a Sanskritic point of view. In S. Stich, M. Mizumoto, & E. McCready (Eds.), Epistemology for the rest of the world (pp. 12–21). Oxford University Press.
Harzer, E. (2006). The Yuktidīpikā. A reconstruction of Sāṅkhya methods of knowing. Shaker Verlag.
Jacobsen, K. A. (2018). Yoga in modern Hinduism: Hariharānanda Āraṇya and Sāṁkhyayoga. Routledge.
Jakubczak, M. (2013). Sens Ja. Koncepcja podmiotu w filozofii indyjskiej (sankhja-joga) [The sense of I: Conceptualizing subjectivity in Indian philosophy (Sāṃkhya-Yoga)]. Księgarnia Akademicka.
Jakubczak, M. (2020). A revived Sāṃkhyayoga tradition in modern India. Studia Religiologica, 53(2), 105–118. https://doi.org/10.4467/20844077SR.20.008.12511
Kataoka, K. (2016). Dignāga, Kumārila and Dharmakīrti on the potential problem of pramāṇa and phala having different objects. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 44(2), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-014-9261-4
Kellner, B. (2010). Self-awareness (svasaṃvedana) in Dignāga’s Pramāṇasamuccaya and -vṛtti: a close reading. In B. Kellner (Ed.), Buddhist theories of self-awareness (svasaṃvedana): Reception and critique [Special issue]. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 38(3), 203–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-010-9091-y
Kellner, B. (2014). Changing frames in Buddhist thought: The concept of ākāra in Abhidharma and in Buddhist epistemological analysis. In B. Kellner & S. McClintock (Eds.), Ākāra in Buddhist philosophical and soteriological analysis [Special issue]. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 42(2/3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-013-9190-7
Kellner, B. (2016). The concept of ākāra in early Sāṅkhya epistemology. In H. Lasic & X. Li (Eds.), Sanskrit manuscripts in China II. Proceedings of a panel at the 2012 Beijing Seminar on Tibetan Studies, August 1 to 5 (pp. 127–149). China Tibetology Publishing House.
Kimball, J. (2011). The soteriological role of the rṣi Kapila in the Yuktidīpikā: The production and transmission of liberating knowledge in classical Sāmkhya. PhD thesis. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Retrieved May 7, 2012, from http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/13604/1/Kimball_3348.pdf
Kimball, J. (2013). The soteriological role of the ṛṣi Kapila, according to the Yuktidīpikā. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 41(6), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-013-9199-y
Kondō, H. (2010). A comparative study of characteristics of the perception theories in the Yuktidīpikā and the Yogasūtrabhāṣya. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 58(3), 1134–1138. https://doi.org/10.4259/ibk.58.3_1134
Krishna, D. (2006). Developments in Indian philosophy from eighteenth century onwards: Classical and Western. Project of History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture, Centre for Study in Civilizations.
Kumar, S. (1983). Sāṃkhya thought in the Brahmanical systems of Indian philosophy. Eastern Book Linkers.
Kumar, S. (1984). Sāṃkhya-Yoga epistemology. Eastern Book Linkers.
Larson, G. J. (1979). Classical Sāṃkhya. An interpretation of its history and meaning. Motilal Banarsidass.
Larson, G. J. (1983). An eccentric ghost in the machine: Formal and quantitative aspects of the Sāṃkhya-Yoga dualism. Philosophy East and West, 33(3), 219–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/1398825
Larson, G. J. (1987). The history and literature of Sāṃkhya. In G. J. Larson & R. S. Bhattacharya (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies: Sāṃkhya: A dualist tradition in Indian philosophy (Vol. IV, pp. 3–41). Motilal Banarsidass.
Łucyszyna, O. (2011). Czy puruṣa jest podmiotem? Na podstawie analizy opozycji podmiotu (viṣayin) i przedmiotu (viṣaya) w klasycznej sāṁkhyi [Is puruṣa a subject? Based on the analysis of the subject (viṣayin)—object (viṣaya) opposition in classical Sāṃkhya]. In O. Łucyszyna & M. St. Zięba (Eds.), Purusza, atman, tao, sin… Wokół problematyki podmiotu w tradycjach filozoficznych Wschodu (pp. 77–93). Wydawnictwo Akademii Humanistyczno-Ekonomicznej w Łodzi.
Matilal, B. K. (2002). Knowledge, truth and pramātva. In J. Ganeri (Ed.), The collected essays of Bimal Krishna Matilal: Mind, language and world (Vol. 1, pp. 149–161). Oxford University Press.
Mejor, M. (2004). Some observations on the date of the Yuktidīpikā (apropos of the new edition). In P. Balcerowicz & M. Mejor (Eds.), Essays in Indian philosophy, religion and literature (pp. 399–433). Motilal Banarsidass.
Mohanty, J. (2001). Nyāya theory of doubt. In R. W. Perrett (Ed.), Indian philosophy: A collection of readings. Epistemology (Vol. 1, pp. 351–371). Routledge.
Moriyama, S. (2008). Sense data and ākāra. In M. K. Chakraborti, B. Löwe, M. N. Mitra, & S. Sarukkai (Eds.), Logic, Navya-Nyāya & applications: Homage to Bimal Krishna Matilal (pp. 205–216). College Publications.
Murakami, S. (1999). What is caitanya—eternal or non-eternal? Asiatische Studien, 53(3), 645–665. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-147473
Nicholson, A. J. (2014). Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and identity in Indian intellectual history. Columbia University Press.
Parrott, R. J. (1985). The experience called ‘reason’ in classical Sāṃkhya. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 13(3), 235–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00163224
Parrott, R. J. (1986). The problem of the Sāṃkhya tattvas as both cosmic and psychological phenomena. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 14(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165826
Potter, K. H. (1977). Introduction to the philosophy of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika. In K. H. Potter (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies: Indian metaphysics and epistemology: The tradition of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika up to Gaṅgeśa (Vol. II, pp. 1–208). Princeton University Press.
Stcherbatsky, Th. (1962). Buddhist logic (1st ed. 1930). In 2 vol. Vol. II. Dover Publications.
Taber, J. (2005). A Hindu critique of Buddhist epistemology. Kumārila on perception. The “Determination of perception” chapter of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa’s Ślokavārttika. Translation and commentary. Routledge Curzon, Taylor & Francis Group.
Wezler, A., & Motegi, S. (Eds.). (1998). Yuktidīpikā. The most significant commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā. (Vol. I). Franz Steiner Verlag.
Yiannopoulos, A. (2020). The structure of Dharmakīrti’s philosophy: A study of object-cognition in the Perception Chapter (pratyakṣapariccheda) of the Pramāṇasamuccaya, the Pramāṇavārttika and their earliest commentaries. Doctoral dissertation. James T. Laney School of Graduate Studies, Emory University. Retrieved September 30, 2022, from https://etd.library.emory.edu/concern/etds/hm50ts89k?locale=en
Acknowledgements
I am deeply grateful to Professor Dr. Birgit Kellner, who received me (in May 2022) for a consultation on the main theses of this research and gave me a lot of valuable, insightful, and precise advice on the difficult and important Buddhist terms appearing in the Yuktidīpikā (such as adhigamarūpa), the texts I should read to understand these terms, and the Buddhist position against which the Yuktidīpikā polemicized. An initial version of this work was presented during the International Conference—90th Anniversary of Oriental Studies at the University of Warsaw (June 29–30, 2022), and I benefited much from communication with Dr. Monika Nowakowska, a researcher of the Mīmāṃsā darśana, who participated in this conference. I am also very grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their thorough analysis of my article manuscript, supportive opinions, and brilliant comments, which helped me to significantly improve the quality of my work. All possible shortcomings are mine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares no conflict of interest.
Open Access
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Łucyszyna, O. Sām.ṃkhya’s Challenge to the Buddhist Claim of the Identity of a Pramān.ṇa and Its Result. J Indian Philos 51, 365–389 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09538-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-023-09538-4