________________
102
VOGADRȘTISAMUCCAYA
Lastly, we come to the third question of the Yogabindu - viz. that of reconciling the differences obtaining between the authorities dealing with the problems of good conduct. Haribhadra must have felt that these differences pertain not so much - perhaps not at all to the problems of good conduct as such as to those related to the 'metaphysics' of good conduct. Hence it is that we occasionally find ( e. g. in vv. 100-108) him comparing and contrasting the tenets of the Karma-doctrine of the Jaipas with the corresponding tenets of otber schools. This. ultimately leads him to undertake a refutation of the Buddhist and Sankhya positions on the question of onniscience (vv. 438 - 57 ), of the Buddhist doctrine of 10-soul (vv. 476-77), of Sankhya eternalism (vv. 478 -89), of Vedānta nondualismu (vy. 513-23 ) etc. - a refuta. tion baying little direct bearing on ethical problems. Much of this discussion finds no place and rightly in the Yogađộstisamuccaya but a brief refutation of Buddhist momentarism and Sankhya eternalism occurs here too by mistake as it were. In any case, as a result of Haribhadra's studied avoidance of metaphýsical controversies in the Yogadşstisamuccaya his appeal for eschewiog theological sectariabism - which makes its appearance here as in the Yogabindu - sounds more sincere here than in the Yogabindu.
II
The Dvātrimśikās 10th - 26th of Yasovijaya's Dvātrimsaddvātrinsikā bave their own value for a student of the Yogadsstisamuccaya. All these dvalriñśikās deal with the problems of yoga in Haribhadra's sense of the word and they literally borrow the major part of tbeir waterial either from the Yogabindu and its commentary or from the Vogadssti samuccaya and its commentary. For the present let us ignore the dva'trimśikās lith, 20th, 25th and 26th in which for the most part Yasov ijaya either criticizes or endorses - mainly doing the former-certain positions upbeld by Patanjali but left unnoticet by Haribhadra ( the very title of the 11th dvālrimsikā being Pātañiala-vogalaksan remaining thirteen dvālrimsikās the 10th - 18th ( barring of course, the Ilth ) are based on the waterial borrowed from the Yogabindu (and its commentary ), the 21st - 24th on that horrowed from the Yogadrstisamuccaya (and its commentary) while the 19th is based on that borrowed from both.
Now the very fact that a logician of Yasovijaya's acumen could thus bring together in one writing the material borrowed from the Yogabindu and the Yogadrstisam uccaya should be enough to dispel the likely apprehension that the Haribhadrian writings in question are mutually divergent in any important respect. Such an apprehension wight arise from the fact that the ideal bumau personality is divided by
