The Two Youngest of the Mahābhārata’s Five Stand-Alone Sāṃkhya Treatises: Epic Sāṃkhya Studies 3
This paper follows upon my previous study of the three earliest of the Mahābhārata’s five stand-alone Sāṃkhya treatises, namely 12.187, Adhyātma, 12.211-212, the Pañcaśikhavākya, and 12.267, the Nāradāsitasaṃvāda, in which those texts were shown to present authentic, if distinct, forms of genuine Sā...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
2025
|
| In: |
Indo-Iranian journal
Year: 2025, Volume: 68, Issue: 4, Pages: 358-394 |
| Further subjects: | B
Renunciation
B Janaka B Nārāyaṇa B Yoga B Mokṣadharmaparvan B Ṣaṣṭitantra B Pañcaśikha B Sankhya B Sulabhā |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This paper follows upon my previous study of the three earliest of the Mahābhārata’s five stand-alone Sāṃkhya treatises, namely 12.187, Adhyātma, 12.211-212, the Pañcaśikhavākya, and 12.267, the Nāradāsitasaṃvāda, in which those texts were shown to present authentic, if distinct, forms of genuine Sāṃkhya philosophy (Fitzgerald 2025). The current paper addresses the two somewhat later texts—the fourth and fifth of the five, namely 12.290, Sāṃkhya, and 12.308, the Sulabhājanakasaṃvāda—with the same argument and makes a similar exegetic demonstration. However, each of these latter two texts presents Sāṃkhya philosophy in a more complex way, and in a more complicated communicative setting, than did the three older treatises. Those differences require some secondary adjustments to the demonstration and also a general discussion of the unique mode of presentation of each text. In particular, 12.290, Sāṃkhya, is the Sāṃkhya member of a designed Sāṃkhya-Yoga dyad that presents the two philosophies comparatively, and within a frame of Nārāyaṇa theology. 12.308, the Sulabhājanakasaṃvāda, addresses what seems a deliberately falsified rendition of Pañcaśikha’s instruction of King Janaka in the Pañcaśikhavākya, earlier in the Mokṣadharma. This later rendition claims Pañcaśikha taught a version of Sāṃkhya gnosis that conferred liberation and allowed a person seeking mokṣa to continue acting in the world rather than requiring renunciation. Sulabhā argues that that understanding of Sāṃkhya gnosis is wrong, and she shows it to be so by provoking Janaka to reveal that his mind is still bound to the normal categories of perception and to passions. Concluding remarks directed at all five of the early epic Sāṃkhya texts treated in these studies emphasize the prolific diversity attested in the natural philosophy of the early Sāṃkhya tradition in the epic. They further suggest that these five texts may represent precursors of Sāṃkhya as a ṣaṣṭitantra, "a system of sixty principles," that some later Sāṃkhya thinkers may have deliberately simplified into the classical canonical list of twenty-five tattvas. Further indications of both those trends of development in the MDh are mentioned and suggestions for further study of Sāṃkhya in the epic are offered. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1572-8536 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Indo-Iranian journal
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1163/15728536-06804001 |
