Die Erkenntnislehere Des Klassischen Samkhya Systems

This document is an academic study titled "Die Erkenntnislehre Des Klassischen Sāmkbya Systems" (The Theory of Knowledge of the Classical Sāṃkhya System) by Erich Frauwallner. The work aims to reconstruct the epistemology of the classical Sāṃkhya system, which is known to be one of the most significant philosophical developments in ancient India.

Here's a comprehensive summary of the content:

1. The Challenge of Reconstructing Classical Sāṃkhya:

• Frauwallner begins by acknowledging the profound influence of the Sāṃkhya system on subsequent Indian thought, including epics, Puranas, and Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions.
• However, he highlights the critical difficulty: only one major work from the classical period, the Sāṃkhyakārikā of Īśvarakṛṣṇa, has survived. While a masterpiece of conciseness and clarity, it presents a brief dogmatic outline, leaving the underlying thought processes, historical development, and the thinkers themselves in obscurity.
• Existing commentaries on the Sāṃkhyakārikā (like those of Paramārtha, Māthara, Gaudapāda, and Vācaspatimiśra) are deemed mere scholastic explanations, offering little insight into the original system. Even the recently discovered Yuktidīpikā, while richer, only hints at the lost works rather than providing a clear picture.

2. The Focus on Epistemology:

• Frauwallner identifies the theory of knowledge (epistemology) as the most promising area for regaining knowledge of classical Sāṃkhya.
• He notes that before the refinement of Buddhist logic by Vasubandhu and Dignāga, Sāṃkhya epistemology was highly influential. Evidence for this is seen in Śabara's Mīmāṃsābhāṣya and Candramati's Daśapadārthaśāstra.
• Crucially, Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya, a seminal work of Buddhist logic, engages extensively with Sāṃkhya's epistemological views. A significant portion of Dignāga's polemics is directed against Sāṃkhya, meaning his work, supplemented by Jinendrabuddhi's commentary, contains valuable information and fragments of Sāṃkhya texts.

3. The Method of Reconstruction: Using Dignāga's Polemics:

• Frauwallner's methodology involves analyzing Dignāga's Pramāṇasamuccaya and Jinendrabuddhi's commentary to extract Sāṃkhya doctrines. He focuses initially on the second chapter concerning svārthānumāna (inference for oneself) due to favorable conditions.
• By comparing Dignāga's criticisms with Jinendrabuddhi's explanations, Frauwallner identifies specific Sāṃkhya sentences that Dignāga was refuting. This allows him to reconstruct longer fragments of a classical Sāṃkhya text.
• He demonstrates that Dignāga continued to engage with the same Sāṃkhya text in the third chapter of his work, picking up where he left off in the second chapter.

4. Identification of the Source Text: The Ṣaṣṭitantram of Vṛṣagaṇa:

• Through detailed comparative analysis of fragments cited by Dignāga, Jinendrabuddhi, and crucially, by Simhasūri in his commentary on Mallavādi's Dvādaśāranayacakram, Frauwallner identifies the specific Sāṃkhya text being critiqued.
• Simhasūri's commentary provides key passages that confirm the content and structure of Dignāga's target. At the end of a relevant section, Simhasūri explicitly mentions the ṣaṣṭitantraṃ vārṣagaṇe (the Ṣaṣṭitantram of Vṛṣagaṇa).
• Frauwallner argues that this identification is sound based on several factors:
  • Dignāga likely used the authoritative work of the school.
  • The Ṣaṣṭitantram is quoted in other important Sāṃkhya sources like the Yuktidīpikā.
  • The content aligns with the known subject matter of the Ṣaṣṭitantram, which focused on 60 core concepts (10 fundamental doctrines and 50 terms). The reconstructed passages deal with key Sāṃkhya doctrines like the origin of the universe (Urmaterie) and the means of valid knowledge.

5. Key Findings about Vṛṣagaṇa's Ṣaṣṭitantram and Epistemology:

• Structure: Vṛṣagaṇa's Ṣaṣṭitantram is presented as the foundational work of classical Sāṃkhya, establishing a systematic approach.
• Epistemology as Foundation: The study confirms that Vṛṣagaṇa's epistemology formed the basis of his system. He prioritized the theory of knowledge and derived the core concepts from it, a methodological innovation.
• Means of Knowledge (Pramāṇas):
  • Vṛṣagaṇa's epistemology began with a discussion of the means of valid knowledge.
  • Interestingly, he placed anumāna (inference) first and pratyakṣa (perception) second, a departure from the usual practice, due to the central role inference played in his system.
  • He also recognized āptavacana (testimony of a trustworthy person) as a third means of knowledge.
• Inference (Anumāna):
  • Vṛṣagaṇa defined inference as the knowledge of the unperceived based on a perceived relation.
  • He elaborated on the seven types of relations (sambandhas) that form the basis of inference.
  • He distinguished between inference based on similarity to the particular (viśeṣataḥ dṛṣṭam) and similarity to the general (sāmānyataḥ dṛṣṭam).
  • He further classified inference based on the general (sāmānyataḥ dṛṣṭam) into pūrvavat (inference from cause to effect) and śeṣavat (inference from effect to cause), asserting that only the latter is absolutely certain – a point later revived by Dharmakīrti.
  • He emphasized the importance of a strong connection (niyata sambandha) between the probans and the probandum, a concept also later developed by Dharmakīrti.
  • He attempted to explain errors in inference, attributing them to a faulty understanding of the probans.
  • He integrated the avayavas (members of a syllogism) as mere linguistic formulations of inference, a view later adopted by Buddhist logicians like Dignāga.
  • He also incorporated āvīta (indirect inference), a significant innovation.
• Perception (Pratyakṣa):
  • Vṛṣagaṇa's definition of perception is reconstructed, highlighting the role of the senses and the mind (manasādhiṣṭhitā vrttiḥ).
  • The study delves into the intricate Sāṃkhya debate on the relationship between the senses and the mind in perception, particularly the question of whether the mind is merely an accompanying factor or actively constitutes the act of perception. This discussion reveals differing interpretations within Sāṃkhya commentaries.
• Methodology and Influence:
  • Vṛṣagaṇa's approach was highly systematic, treating epistemology as the cornerstone of his philosophical edifice.
  • He was a pioneer in establishing rigorous argumentation and laid the groundwork for later developments in Indian logic.
  • His work represents an independent line of philosophical development, distinct from the dialectical tradition of Nyāya and Buddhism, although later Vaiseṣika epistemology shows Sāṃkhya influence.
• Dating: Frauwallner tentatively places Vṛṣagaṇa around 300 AD, predating the major Buddhist logicians.

6. The Significance of the Findings:

• This research provides direct access to a major classical Sāṃkhya text for the first time, allowing for an independent evaluation of the system.
• It clarifies Vṛṣagaṇa's contribution to the development of Sāṃkhya philosophy, particularly his systematic approach and the foundational role of epistemology.
• It highlights Vṛṣagaṇa's originality in formulating key concepts in inference and the relationship between the senses and the mind, many of which were later re-examined and developed by Buddhist philosophers.

In essence, Frauwallner's "Die Erkenntnislehere Des Klassischen Samkhya Systems" is a crucial scholarly endeavor that meticulously reconstructs the epistemological framework of classical Sāṃkhya, primarily through the lens of Buddhist logical critiques, identifying Vṛṣagaṇa's Ṣaṣṭitantram as the primary source and revealing its profound impact and originality in the history of Indian philosophy.