. Not only does Gu@naratna's reference to the
school of Maulikya Sa@mkhya justify it, but the fact that Caraka
(78 A.U.) does not refer to the Sa@mkhya as described by Is'varak@r@s@na
and referred to in other parts of _Mahabharata_ is a definite
proof that Is'varak@r@s@na's Sa@mkhya is a later modification, which
was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as
an authoritative old Sa@mkhya view.

Wassilief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavasin altered
the Sa@mkhya according to his own views [Footnote ref 2]. Takakusu thinks
that Vindhyavasin was a title of Is'varak@r@s@na [Footnote ref 3] and Garbe
holds that the date of Is'varak@r@s@na was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a
very plausible view that Is'varak@r@s@na was indebted for his karikas to
another work, which was probably written in a style different
from what he employs. The seventh verse of his _Karika_ seems to
be in purport the same as a passage which is found quoted in the

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: A verse attributed to Asuri is quoted by Gu@naratna
(_Tarkarahasyadipika,_ p. 104). The purport of this verse is that when
buddhi is transformed in a particular manner, it (puru@sa) has experience.
It is like the reflection of the moon in transparent water.]

[Footnote 2: Vassilief's _Buddhismus,_ p. 240.]

[Footnote 3: Takakusu's "A study of Paramartha's life of Vasubandhu," _J.
R.A.S._, 1905. This identification by Takakusu, however, appears to be
extremely doubtful, for Gu@naratna mentions Is'varak@r@s@na and
Vindhyavasin as two different authorities (_Tarkarahasyadipika,_
pp. 102 and 104). The verse quoted from Vindhyavasin (p. 104) in
anu@s@tubh metre cannot be traced as belonging to Is'varak@r@s@na. It
appears that Is'varak@r@s@na wrote two books; one is the _Sa@mkhya
karika_ and another an independent work on Sa@mkhya, a line from which,
quoted by Gu@naratna, stands as follows:

"_Pratiniyatadhyavasaya@h s'rotradisamuttha adhyak@sam_" (p. 108).

If Vacaspati's interpretation of the classification of anumana in his
_Tattvakaumudi_ be considered to be a correct explanation of _Sa@mkhya
karika_ then Is'varak@r@s@na must be a different person from Vindhyavasin
whose views on anumana as referred to in _S'lokavarttika,_ p. 393, are
altogether different. But Vacaspati's own statement in the
_Tatparyya@tika_ (pp. 109 and 131) shows that his treatment there was not
faithful.]