Page 725 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

A MISSING SANKHY A KARIKA 77
( ~I'Ht( ), here used, shows that the writer of the Karikds
must have in his mind some other ulterior cause of the world
mentioned by other philosophers. What could these be ? There
is no stanza in the present text which would elucidate this point.
But if we read Gau~apada's Bhd~hya, the point is cleared up by
mentioning four subtler causes advocated by others, namely,
Ishvara, Puru~ha, Kala ( time ) and Svabhdva ( nature ). The
first two of these being nirgUIJO cannot be the cause of sagU7Ja
world, and the last two being vyakta ( visible ) cannot precede
the avyakta ( Prakriti ). So the Bhdfhyakara re-iterates the
Siiilkhya conclusion that there is no finer or subtler cause of the
visible world than the Prakriti; and then proceeds to the exami-
nation of rhe next, that is, the 62nd verse in Wilson's edition.
Now as I was reading this Bhd~hya, it struck me that all this
discussion about several ulterior causes of the world could not
have been inserted in the Bha~hya by Gau!lapiida on his own
responsibility. On the contrary he introduces it by the phrase,
~ •i(d( ~. which means, ( he ) now describes or explains
( what is meant by ) '!1®4il(d(. The third personal verb ~
cannot refer to the Bhd~hyakara or commentator. Again the
enunciation of the different doctrines regarding the ulterior
cause of the world is introduced by such words as ~ m ~.
am ~.:t"'••dol<lit ~. d'JI ~ ~= ~. ~ ~ ~.
and the reply is introduced by the phrase, ~ ('fR""iioql:afi '"&: I
(See the underlined words in the extract from the Bba~hya given
above. ) These phrases, coming as they do after the phrase ~
WJ+iR(I4: ~' look like excerpts, or prat£kas as they are called
in Sanskrit, from the text on which Gau!lapada is comment-
ing. In other words Gau!lapada here seems to have before
him a verse in the text which explained why Prakriti was called
W§iti(d( in the 6Ist stanza. It may be noted that commentin~
on the 27th Karikd Gau~apada while explaining how the variety
in the world is produced by !J"IQRulffl alone, has discussed the
same different causes, viz., lshvara, Svabhava, Puru~ha, etc. But
there Gau~apada uses no such phrases as ~+ii(d~ ~' nor
is there to be found a systematic statement and refutation of
different opinions as here. This leads me to conclude that in
the original Karikas there must have been a verse following the
6lst and explaining why Prakriti was therein called ~IHI(.
Taking my cue from the underlined words in the Bhd~hya above