History of Debate

[Ferenc Ruzsa]

Nanda Chandran wrote:
>Ferenc, are you correct in saying that missing references are a rule
>in Indian literature?

Dear Nanda,

what I mean is: named, unambiguous and reliable information, (based on)
near-contemporary sources.
E. g. if I understand your hint:
> KAlidhAsa makes a comment about the Bauddha
> logician DignAga
to refer to meghadUta 14, there is only the word diGnAga (world-elephant),
and no talk of logic or Buddhism - so it is rather doubtful information.

>It's in this way that I find it strange that no mention of Ishvara
>Krishna occurs anywhere (Am I right in this?).
Of course the name IzvarakRSNa occurs in the sAMkhya-kArikA itself (71) and
also in some of the earlier commentaries; but no reliable data. Quite some
authors quote the sAMkhya-kArikA, including zaGkara in the
brahma-sUtra-bhASya (not naming the author, of course). Lots of information
can be found in:
Dr. Shiv Kumar: sAMkhya Thought in the Brahminical Systems of Indian
Philosophy. Delhi 1983.

Why I feel that kAlidAsa cannot be the author of the sAMkhya-kArikA is the
enormous difference in style. Though IzvarakRSNa is no mean poet himself,
but he is plain and straightforward; for instance he avoids complicated or
lengthy compounds and he uses a single metre (AryA) throughout. So even if
kAlidAsa would turn out to be a staunch follower of sAMkhya I would not
believe in their identity.

Yours, Ferenc