ofkarma as the determinant of human destiny is on the whole the dominant
one, the prevalence of other views about this, not uncommonly in the narrative
and even occasionally in the didactic parts, is worth noting. In various passages
fate (daiva, etc.), time, death, nature and one’s own nature are each regarded as
the supreme principle; ideas were still evidently in flux and indeed we see here
the more popular equivalent of the ferment of ideas recorded in the Upanis.ads.
More traditional practices are still advocated and even deliberately contrasted
with the philosophical approaches labeled Sa ̄m.khya and Yoga (which in any case
are emerging trends rather than definite systems – the terms may at times mean
no more than theory and practice respectively) or with developing Vais.n.ava
theism. For example, in one passage (12.189–93), Bhı ̄s.ma declares that japa, the
murmuring of Vedic verses, constitutes a way of life belonging to the Vedic tra-
dition and distinct from Sa ̄m.khya and Yoga – which he has treated successively
in the two preceding chapters – and he emphasizes that someone practicing japa
selflessly is equal to a Yogin in achievements; the passage is clearly intended to
defend this traditional practice from the challenge of the newer ideas. Again,
immediately after the Na ̄ra ̄yan. ̄ya – ı and so in implicit contrast to it – comes an
episode designed to extol the merits of living on the grain gleaned after harvest
(12.340–53, cf. 3.245–7). Other passages tackle the emerging ethical and
religious issues of nonviolence (ahim.sa ̄), vegetarianism, and veneration of the
cow (e.g. 12.253–6, 257, 260–2 and 264, and 13.115–17).
Several teachers are cited in the Moks.adharmaparvan as teaching some form
of Sa ̄m.khya, but the doctrines attributed to them vary and are not necessarily
specific to Sa ̄m.khya; three of these teachers are often referred to later as
important precursors of the developed system (Kapila, A ̄suri, and Pañcas ́ikha).
However, most epic descriptions of Sa ̄m.khya are not by Sa ̄m.khya teachers but
report their views. Although consequently these passages are not primary
sources for knowledge about the system, they do include ideas then current and
may well have been composed during the period when Sa ̄m.khya schools were
emerging. Indeed, Sa ̄m.khya had not assumed its later distinctive shape even by
the end of the epic period; the nearest approach to the classical system is found
in the very late Anugı ̄ta ̄, which also incorporates significant Yoga elements. One
early passage (12.187 ª12.239–40) contains a synthesis of ancient cosmolog-
ical speculations and yogic theories of evolution. Other passages mention three
types of Sa ̄m.khya thinkers – those who accept just 24 categories, those who
accept 25, and those who accept 26, the last being the supreme deity – but
mostly the versions of Sa ̄m.khya found in the Maha ̄bha ̄rata are nontheistic, unlike
Yoga. The clearest theistic version is found in the Bhagavadgı ̄ta ̄.
Yoga and yogins occur quite widely in the Maha ̄bha ̄rata in contexts which
suggest a wider and to some extent a different understanding of the terms than
that found in classical Yoga. Also, the older practice oftapas and that of Yoga are
often linked (but are often seen just as effective means to gain worldly ends).
However, by the time of the Na ̄ra ̄yan.ı ̄ya,tapas and Yoga are both being subor-
dinated to bhakti, with Na ̄ra ̄yan.a identifying himself as the goal of Yoga pro-
claimed in Yoga texts (12.326.65), while the juxtaposition of Sa ̄m.khya and Yoga
the sanskrit epics 125