Page 726 - Lokmanya Tilak Samagra (khand 2)

" . " "
78 SAMAGRA TILAK- 2 • A MISSING SANKHYA KARIKA
given I would, therefore, reconstruct and restore the now missing
Arya as follows :-
~~~~tR~<ftl
Sliftl: ~ ~ ~: iliTci'i: ~~II

The first half of this Arya would thus give the four causes
( subtler than Prakriti ) mentioned by others, and the second
half would contain their refutation in brief; and then ~ .,.,d~
~ in Gau~ap§.da's BM~hya would be a fitting intoduction
to it. It may be noticed that ~' here mentioned is ~ ~
and that the reply SNr~: ~ ~: hold good equally in the
case of t~ and ~' while the reply that ~ cannot be
the cause of the ~ ( Prakriti ) applies both to ~ and ~
mentioned in the first half of the proposed Arya.
The peculiarity of the Sankhya as distinguished from other
systems of pfiilosophy is that in their search for a final cause of
~e visible world the Sailkhyas never go beyond Prakriti. They
recognise neither lshavara nor anything else as standing behind and
controlling the Prakriti ( Cf. Bhagavad-gita ix. 10 ). The Sankhya-
pravachana-Sutras i. 92 and v. 2ff, clearly state that Ishvara
cannot be proved to be the final cause, and the Sdnkhya-Kdrikds
would be incomplete without a similar statement. But the doctrine
is not contained in the 69 Karikds forming the doctrinal
part of the present text. Unless, therefore, we supply a verse like
the above the doctrinal part of the Sankhya Karikds would be
seriously defective, not to mention that one Arya would be wanting
to complete the number of 70 Aryas said to be originally comprised
in the book.
I have tried to restore the last verse from the Bhd~hya of Gau~­
p;lda. But it may fairly be asked if the part of the BM~hya
relied upon is genuine. For this purpose we may refer to Dr. Taka-
k:usu's French translation of the Chinese version of the KAriUs
and the commentary referred to above. The Chinese commentary
on the 61st verse is more complete than Gau~apada's Bhd~hya.
It mentions more fully than Gau~ap§.da the four causes, viz.
Ishvara, Puru~ha, Kala ( time ) and Svabhava ( nature ), which
some believe to be subtler than Prakr;iti, and refutes them one by
one by the same arguments as used by Gau~apada. It is very diffi-
cult to judge what exact words were used in the Sanskrit commen-
tary which was rendered into Chinese. In the French translation