Authorship Of Sastitantram

This paper, "The Authorship of the Sastitantram" by G. Oberhammer, delves into the complex historical attribution of a foundational text of the Samkhya philosophical system, the Sastitantram. The author's primary goal is to determine whether the text was authored by Pañcasikha or Vrṣagana, addressing the contradictions and ambiguities in ancient traditions.

Oberhammer begins by acknowledging the Sastitantram's importance to speculative Samkhya and the challenges in establishing its authorship due to fragmented preservation and conflicting traditions. The author tradition is noted as being divided between Pañcasikha and Vrṣagana.

The study relies on a thorough examination of various textual references and fragments from ancient Indian philosophical works, including the Mahabharata, Samkhyakārikā, Yuktidīpikā, Yogabhāṣyam, and numerous commentaries. Oberhammer establishes strict rules for evaluating the evidence, prioritizing contemporary testimonies over later ones and requiring corroboration from other sources for later attributions.

Key findings and arguments presented in the paper include:

• Pañcasikha's Historical Position: The paper meticulously traces Pañcasikha's presence in the tradition, noting his early mention in Isvarakrishna's Samkhyakārikā (Kā. 70). Commentaries like Paramārtha's and the Yuktidīpikā place Pañcasikha early in the lineage, possibly as a student of Āsuri, separating him from later teachers by a significant gap. The Mahabharata portrays Pañcasikha as a highly respected and influential teacher, even capable of replacing Yajnavalkya as Janaka's teacher. Puranic texts and the Atharvavedaparisiṣṭa also include Pañcasikha in lists of revered sages, suggesting he was considered an ancient authority.
• Lack of Direct Evidence for Pañcasikha's Teachings: Despite his prominence in epic and Puranic traditions, Oberhammer emphasizes that classical Samkhya works rarely mention Pañcasikha's specific teachings. Most fragments attributed to him are late attributions, often anonymous ones assigned to him by later commentators like Vācaspati.
• Vācaspati's Misattributions: The paper critically analyzes Vācaspati's attributions of anonymous fragments in the Yogabhāṣyam to Pañcasikha. Oberhammer demonstrates that these attributions are often incorrect, with older sources like the Yuktidīpikā attributing these same fragments to Vrṣagana or to an unnamed Sāstram.
• Vrṣagana as the True Author of the Sastitantram: Oberhammer argues strongly that Vrṣagana, also known as Vārṣaganya, is the actual author of the Sastitantram.
  • Vrṣagana is a well-attested figure in the classical period, mentioned by Vasubandhu, Dignāga, Uddyotakara, and Simhasūri.
  • His teachings are documented in polemical texts, indicating he was a significant figure whose work was engaged with by opponents.
  • The Yuktidīpikā extensively discusses Vrṣagana and his teachings, suggesting his work was central to the classical period.
  • The paper presents textual evidence linking Vrṣagana's work, specifically the Vārṣaganyatantram, to the Sastitantram. For instance, five proofs for the existence of primal matter attributed to Vrṣagana in the Samkhyakārikā (Kā. 15) are considered a summary of his work.
• The Misconception of Pañcasikha's Authorship: The paper explains how the attribution of the Sastitantram to Pañcasikha likely arose from a misunderstanding of Isvarakrishna's statement ("tena ca bahudhā kṛtam tantram" - "and by him the tantra was made manifold"). Commentators like Paramārtha's source misinterpreted this to mean Pañcasikha wrote a large work, which was then conflated with the Sastitantram. The epic and Puranic traditions, which kept Pañcasikha's name alive, coupled with the fading knowledge of Vrṣagana, contributed to this misattribution. By the time of the Jayamangala commentary, Pañcasikha was explicitly identified as the author of the Sastitantram.
• The Meaning of Sastitantram: The term Sastitantram is understood to mean "a system of sixty concepts," reflecting the content of the Sastitantram and its significance as a representative work of the classical Samkhya system.

In conclusion, Oberhammer's study decisively argues that:

1. Pañcasikha was an important early figure in Samkhya, primarily preserved in epic and Puranic traditions, but with little direct evidence of his specific teachings in the classical period.
2. Vrṣagana was the prominent teacher of the classical period and the author of the fundamental work, the Sastitantram, which formed the basis for Isvarakrishna's Samkhyakārikā.
3. The attribution of the Sastitantram to Pañcasikha is a later development stemming from misinterpretations and the fading knowledge of Vrṣagana's contributions, while Pañcasikha's popular image was maintained by other traditions.
4. Vācaspati's attributions of anonymous fragments to Pañcasikha are unreliable and often correctly belong to Vrṣagana or his school.

The paper thus resolves the authorship question in favor of Vrṣagana, providing a detailed historical and textual analysis to support its conclusion.