Draft:Yuktidīpikā
 | Draft article not currently submitted for review.
This is a draft Articles for creation (AfC) submission. It is not currently pending review. While there are no deadlines, abandoned drafts may be deleted after six months. To edit the draft click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window. To be accepted, a draft should:
It is strongly discouraged to write about yourself, your business or employer. If you do so, you must declare it. Where to get help
How to improve a draft
You can also browse Wikipedia:Featured articles and Wikipedia:Good articles to find examples of Wikipedia's best writing on topics similar to your proposed article. Improving your odds of a speedy review To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags. Editor resources
Last edited by Citation bot (talk | contribs) 4 seconds ago. (Update) |
| युक्तिदीपिका | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Full title | Yuktidīpika |
| Original title | युक्तिदीपिका |
| Author(s) | Rajavarttika |
| Language | Sanskrit |
| Date | 7-8th c. |
| Manuscript(s) | Ahmedabad, Varanasi, Srinagar, Pune, Delhi |
| Genre | Commentary |
| Subject | Samkhya |
Yuktidīpikā (Skt. युक्तिदीपिका; transl. Light on Argumentation) is a commentary on the Sāṁkhyakārikā written in Sanskrit between 600 and 700 CE.[1][2] It is often regarded as the most detailed and polemical commentary on the Sāṁkhyakārikā[1] as it evaluates and critiques other Indian philosophies through the lens of Samkhya.[3]
The commentary elaborates on the sixty topics of Ṣaṣṭitantra, namely, the ten fundamental principles, five kinds of error, the nine-contentments, the twenty-eight infirmities of the organs and the eight-perfections. (117, Chakravarti).
Authorship
[edit]The authorship of Yuktidīpikā is uncertain.
Vāchaspati Misra
[edit]Some manuscripts mention Vāchaspati Misra, although it is questionable for the following reasons:[4]
- Misra's Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī does not mention that he has written any such commentary.
- If he composed it after the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī, we don't understand why Misra authored two commentaries on the same.
- Yuktidīpikā and the Sāṃkhyatattvakaumudī contradict each other on interpretation of Sāṁkhyakārikā. Also, the style of both texts is so distinct that it's difficult to imagine that both are written by the same author.
Raja or Rajan
[edit]Some sources hint towards the name Raja or Rajan[4] who is generally believed to be its original author. Nothing more is known about him though.
Manuscripts
[edit]The different editions of manuscripts of the commentary are kept at:[5]
- Ahmedabad: part of the collection at Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology.
- Pune: part of Government Manuscript Library at Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
- Srinagar: with Oriental Research Library, Kashmir University.
- New Delhi: with National Archives of India and labelled number 64.
- Varanasi: in the collection of Banaras Hindu University.
Notable ideas
[edit]The text is classified into 4 prākaraṇa and 11 ahnikas.[4]
Opponents
[edit]Yuktidīpikā regards the non-dualists, the theists, the atomists; the nihilists [i.e., Buddhists], the materialists [i.e.,Charvakas] as well as the immoral people as main opponents of Samkhya.[6]
On Īśvara
[edit]In addition to atoms (paramāṇu), consciousness (puruṣa), action (karma), fate (daiva), time (kāla), chance (yadṛcchā), and absence (abhāva), Yuktidīpikā opposes the notion of a creator god as the cause of world. Instead, Īśvara or god is defined as 'pure-awareness' much like Puruṣa. [7]
The author of the commentary clarifies the idea of Īśvara in response to an opponent who worships Śiva and falsely claims that Sāṃkhya denies the presence of god entirely:
| “ | This too is mistaken, since you do not understand our intended meaning. We do not completely reject the particular power of Īśvara, his assuming a majestic body, etc. Our intended meaning is just that there is no being different from prakṛti (nature) and puruṣa (pure consciousness) and the instigator of these two, as you claim. Therefore, your view is refuted. The conjunction between prakṛti and puruṣa is not instigated by another being. [8] | ” |
The text advocates for an Īśvara that does not exist outside of the dualism of consciousness and nature. It refutes the notion of an absolute creator god. Being pure consciousness, Īśvara lacks any permanent material accessories (such as the mahat) but often assumes material instruments such as a majestic body (māhātmyaśarīra) and is untouched by passion, doubt and can see beyond what can be seen through ordinary senses. [9][7]
On the Vedas
[edit]The text asserts that the Vedas are authorless but non-eternal.[10] In the commentary on the fifth verse of the Sāṃkhyakārikā, it states that the Vedas are “not preceded by the intellect of a puruṣa” in elucidating Īśvarakṛṣṇa's concept of verbal testimony (āptavacana). It refers to the Vedas being 'independent' (svatantra), “leading to the highest good of a man” and “pramāṇa which cannot be put into doubt”.[11] According to Łucyszyna, this view of the Vedas points to a possible influence of Mīmāṃsā. [11]
The text also acknowledges that the Vedas comprise not only rituals but also the path to liberation via knowledge in the Upanishads, which is the same as Samkhya teachings.[12]
References
[edit]Citations
[edit]- ^ a b Łucyszyna (2020:239)
- ^ Verdon (2019:292)
- ^ Kumar & Bhargava (1990:xi) There is no other existing text than the YD which undertakes the issue of defending the Samkhya doctrine from such a criticism. Secondly, the YD adopts the method of criticising the theories of other systems also to justify the position of the system of Samkhya.
- ^ a b c Kumar & Bhargava (1990:xvi)
- ^ Sharma (2018:xxiv-xlvii)
- ^ Kumar & Bhargava (1990:2) pratipakṣāḥ punastasya puruṣeśāṇuvādinaḥ / vaināśikāḥ prākṛtikā vikārapuruṣāstathā // 6 //
- ^ a b Bronkhorst, Johannes. "God in Sāṃkhya". Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens (27): 149–164.
- ^ "Hindu Disproofs of God: Refuting Vedāntic Theism in the Sāṃkhya-Sūtra". academic.oup.com. 2016. p. 605.
- ^ Sherma, Rita D.; Bilimoria, Purushottama (2021). "Contemplative Studies and Hinduism: Meditation, Devotion, Prayer, and Worship". Routledge & CRC Press. Retrieved 2024-09-15.
From the passages where Yuktidīpikā refers to Īśvara (e.g., YD 70.22-73.9-24) we can conclude at least two things, namely that God is not a cause of the world and that He is pure awareness, like the "selves" (purusa-s). These assumptions, however, do not imply that Yuktidīpikā denies the existence of God (YD 1967, 1996). On the contrary, the commentary suggests that God sometimes acquires the instrument of understanding (buddhi) and even adopts a material body to take over the power which belongs to that body. God takes a bodily form, for example, the body of a divine warrior, like Siva (YD 72.9-10), or a body of dignity (māhātmyaśarīrādiparigrahāt, YD 72.13) which is āpta - authoritative (YD 45.10-11) like the Iśvara-mahārsi-s who are the great seers who are (incorporations of) God and who are "devoid of blemishes such as passion, whose opinions are free from doubt, who see things that cannot be reached by the senses.
- ^ Łucyszyna (2020:242)
- ^ a b Łucyszyna (2020:241)
- ^ Łucyszyna (2020:251)
Sources
[edit]- Łucyszyna, Ołena (2020). "The Yuktidīpikā on the Origin of the Vedas". International Journal of Hindu Studies. 24 (2): 239–256. doi:10.1007/s11407-020-09278-0. ISSN 1574-9282.
- Verdon, Noémie (2019). "On the Sāṃkhyakārikā and its Commentarial Tradition: the Suvarṇasaptati, Sāṃkhyavṛtti, and Gauḍapādabhāṣya". The Journal of Hindu Studies. 12 (3): 292–318. doi:10.1093/jhs/hiz016. ISSN 1756-4255.
- Kumar, Shiv; Bhargava, D.N. (1990). Yukti Dipika Vol 1 Easter Book Linkers.
- Sharma, Ramesh K. (2018). Yuktidipika: The Most Important Commentary on the Samkhyakarika of Isvarakrsna (in Sanskrit). Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-4175-8.