·BIBLIOTHECA INDICA;
COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS
PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE
Dom. Court of Directors of the East India Company,
a
AND THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
No. 141.
in
ilib.II",
1991/; 'N
mm
साक्ष्यप्रवचनभाष्यम्।
TIIE
SANKHYA PRAVACHANA-BH ASHYA,
A COMMENTARY ON THE
APHORISMS OF THE HINDU ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY;
BY VIJNANA BHIKSHU.
EDITED BY FITZ-EDWARD HALL, M. A.,
Member of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, of the American Oriental Society,
and of the at, huvlwar Sooiety of Delhi.
FASCICULUS III.
CALCUTTA :
PRINTED BY J. THOMAS, AT THE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS.
1857.
Price 10 Annus per number, I shulling 8d., in England

·BIBLIOTHECA INDICA;
A
COLLECTION OF ORIGINAL WORKS
PUBLISHED UNDER DIE PATRONAGE OF THE
Hon. Court of Directors of the East India Company,
AND THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE
ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
MAN
ANNAVN
साय वच भा
THE
SANKHYA-PRAVACHANA-BHASHYA,
A COMMENTARY ON THE
APHORISMS OF THE HINDU ATHEISTIC PHILOSOPHY;
BY VIJNANA BHIKSHU.
EDITED) BY FITZ-EDWARD HALL, M. A.,
Member of the Asiutic Society of Bengal, of the American Oriental Society,
unl of the Archeological Society of Delhi.
MA
CALCUTTA:
ed
PRINTED BY J. THOMAS, AT TIE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS.
1856.

·EDITOR'S PREFACE. The title which the Hindus apply to their atheistic* theory, "Cependant, il n'est guère supposable que Colebrooke se soit trompé en disant que Kapıla nie l'idée de Dieu. Il n'a fait que reproduire les accusations directes que l'Inde elle-même a portées contre lui; et, comme ces accusations incontestables ne sont pas justifiées pleinement par les slokas de la Kârıkâ, il reste que ce soient les Soûtras que les justifient. Dans aucun de ceux que nous avons traduits, cette déplorable doctrine ne s'est montrée positivement à découvert, mais je crois pouvoir affirmer, dès à présent, qu'elle est en effet dans quelques autres, comme l'affirment les commentateurs mdiens et Colebrooke.” M. Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire : Premier Mémoire sur le Sânkhya, pp 271, 272, Again, of Colebrooke as entertaining the view that Kapila is atheistic: “Il l'avait empruntée lui-même aux commentateurs indiens.” Id., ibid., p. 5. This is scarcely exact. Colebrooke, the last of men to condescend, as a general thing, to statements in train, does much more than “simply reproduce” the charge of atheism against Kapila,“ borrowing it from Indian commentators." He refers, by numbers, to several of Kapıla's own aphorisms, as being implicitly atheistic; and he translates one of them-I., 92-by the words “there is no proof of God's existence.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 251, 252. See, further, I., 92—99; III., 56-57; V., 2-12, and 46; VI., 64, of Kapıla's Aphorisms. A very cursory glance at Indian commentators, at least on the Súnkhya, would have evinced to M. Saint-Hilaire, that they are, mostly, as delicate as he is himself, in respect of charging Kapila with the denial of God. In the Padma-purána, latter section, Páshandotpath chapter, Jaimını and Kapıla are called sages of the támasa order, and their writings arc termed nuris'wara, B ·2 is that of Kapila's Sánkhya ;* this epithet being variously understood, in accordance with the several acceptations of its immediate primitive, sankhyá. In the Mahábhárata, sánkhya is allied to parisankhyána and parisankhyá, ' exhaustive enumeration.'† The author of the Shad-dars'ana-samuchchaya, a Jaina compendium, corresponding to Mádhava A'chárya's Sarva-dars'ana-sangraha, says, in the tone of one who retails a fanıiliar fact : FIE ftati: "fara "fectureaat: 1 * Sánkhya is the denomination common to Kapıla's system and to Patanjalı’s. M. Saint-Hilaire, in the opening words of his Analysis of the Sánkhya, confounds the paronymes sankhyá and sánkhya : " Le mot de Sânkhya, qui est devenu le nom du système de Kapila, signifie nombre, et, pris adjectivement, numéral. Il signifie encore, dans une acception assez voisine: calcul, supputation, jugement, raisonnement." Premier Mémoire sur le Sânkhya, p. 19. Dr. Röer also says: “The term Sánkhya has two meanings, enumeration and investigation." Lecture on the Sánkhya Philosophy, p. 8. The word Sánkhya, as affording a variety of significations, is made the subject of a laborious pun, in the initial couplet of Bháskara A'chárya’s Biza-- ganita. + F13.51 gaaf yfTheap | XII., 11393. Also : साङख्यदर्शनमेतावत् परिसङ निदर्शनम् । साङ । प्रकुर्वते चैव प्रतिं च प्रचक्षते ॥ तत्त्वानि च चतुर्विशत् परिसङ् य तत्वतः । सायाः ह प्रकृत्या तु नि चाप विं कः॥ Ibid., XII., 11409-10. One of my MSS. reads, in the first of these two passages, parisankhyánidars'anam; and, in the second, parisankhyána-dars'anam. The same MS. has sankhyam prokurute in place of sánkhyáh prakurvate. Vijnána Bhikshu, at p. 8, has sankhyám prakurvate, and tena sánkhyán prakértitúh instead of parisankhyáya tattwatah, But, be the best readings, among these, as they may, it is abundantly plain, from the context, that Vijnána errs in supposing that any allusion is here made to sankhyó, or any cognate word, in the sense of "ratiocination” or the like, Colebrooke, who neglected to pursue the scholiast's citation to the fountain-head, took it, on trust, as correct, and renders sankhyú by "judgment.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 229, ·3 Sankhyá, as the proximate source of sánkhya, denotes, greeably to a contemporary speculator of some local celebrity, 'enun- : Nilakaạtha Chaturdhara, in his commentary on the Mahábharata, the Bhírata-bhava-dípa, ineffectually labours, with the aid of arbitrary constructions, to gloss away the palpable import of the passages given above. In short, his predilections as a Vedántí reduce his exegetical merit, wherever the system of Kapıla is under discussion, to that of perverse ingenuity. In citing the Mahábhárata, or in referring to it, I follow, for convenience, the notation, right or wrong, of the printed edition. But I everywhere verify, or correct, the text of this edition by three very good MSS. whicli I have consulted. Colebrooke says ; “A system of philosophy in which precision of reckoning is observed in the enumeration of its principles, is denominated Sunkhya ; a term which has been understood to signify numeral, agreeably to the usual acceptation of sankhyá, number: and hence its analogy to the Pythagorean philosophy has been presumed. But the name may be taken to imply," &c. Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 229. Adverting to these words, M. Saint-Hilaire observes. “Colebrooke s'est laissé tromper par l'apparence et par une fausse analogie, en prononçant le nom de Pythagore à côté de celui de Kapıla.” Premier Mémoire sur le Sânkhya, p. 19. Again, ibid., p. 20: "Si Colebrooke a eu tort de rapprocher le nom de Pythagore de celui du philosophe indien," &c. But Colebrooke, as is quite obvious from his guarded and adversative mode of expression, delivers, in the preceding extract, neither his own opinions nor even opinions which, pending the adduction of further evidence, he would be thought to accept. Professor Wilson-Sánkhya-kárikú, Preface, p. xi.- cites, it is true, the words "and hence its analogy to the Pythagorean philosophy has been presumed,” and without comment as to the paternity of the surmise. have escaped him that he had formerly written : "The first Indian School, the leading tenets of which are described by Mr. Colem brooke, is the Súnkhya, a term which has been understood to signify 619- meral; and which, therefore, perhaps suggested to Sir William Jones, luis comparison of it to the Pythagorean doctrine.” Quarterly Oriental Magazinc, Vol. IV., pp. 11, 12: September, 1825. Colebrooke alludes, without doubt, to the following passage : On the present occasion, it will be sufficient to say that the oldest head of a sect whose entire work is preserved, was-according to some authors-Kapila ; not [?] the divine personage, a reputed grandson [?] of Brahmá, to whom . B 2 It may ·4 ciation pursuant to a stated order.'* Another writer holds that it bears the import of consideration.'+ Elsewhere, it is explained by "right knowledge;' I and the author of the commentary in the following pages, defines it by 'representation of the real nature of spirit, on the basis of an accurate discriminative acquaintance with it, as contrasted with nature.'s Consonantly to Krishna compares himself in the Gítá, but a sage of his name, who invented the Súnkhya, or Numeral, philosophy ; which Krishna himself appears to impugn, in his conversation with Arjuna; and which, as far as I can recollect it from a few original texts, resembled, in part, the metaphysics of Pythagoras, and, in part, the theology of Zeno." Sir William Jones's Works, Vol. I., pp. 163, 164: 4to ed of 1799. Sir William, at an earlier period, had pushed his hypothetical analogies much further than this. “Of the Philosophical Schools it will be sufficient, here, to remark that the first Nyáya seems analogous to the Peripatetic ; the second, sometimes called Vais'eshika, to the Ionic; the two Mámánsás, of which the second is often distinguished by the name of Vedánia, to the Platonic; the first Súnkhya, to the Italic, and the second, or Pátanjala, to the Stoic, philosophy. so that Gautama (Gotama] corresponds with Aristotle ; Kanada, with Thales; Jaimini, with Socrates; Vyása, with Plato; Kapila, with Pythagoras ; and Patanjali, with Zeno. But an accurate comparison between the Grecian and Indian Schools would require a considerable volume.” Ibid., Vol. I., pp. 360, 361, * कस्मात् साङ्ख्यमित्युच्यते। सम्यक् क्रमपूर्वकं त्यानं क नं यस्यां सा सङ्ख्या क्रमपर्वा विचारणा । यत् तामधि त्य तं त त् ङ्ख्यमित्युच्यते भा म्। Deva Tirtha Swamí : Súnkhya-taranga, ad init. + पञ्चविंशतितत्त्वानां सङ्ख्या विचारः। तमधि त्य तो ग्र : साङ्ख्य इति GTGT 3 fu: 68071 Raghunátủa Tarkavagis?a Bhattácháuya: Sánkhya-tattwa-vilása, ad init. * सङ्ख्या सम्यग् ज्ञानम् । तस्मिन् प्रकाशमानमात्म तत्त्वं साङ् I S'ridhara Swamí: Subodhiní, on II., 39, of the Bhagav ud-gítá. Súrya Pandit, the astronomer, annotating, in his Paramártha-prapá, the same passage of the Gítá, almost copies Suídhara : ङ् । सम्यग् ज्ञान । तस्मिन प्रकाश्यमा तत्वं सायम् । $ The original will be found near the top of p. 8. As for the italics noticeable in the text, I would remark, once for all, that I use them to distinguish ellipses. Sanskrit vocables, also, when transliterated, I give, as a rule, in the same style of type.

·some sacred text, as cited, with approval, by S'ankara A'chárya,* sánkhya imports ' ascertainmeut of the truth concerning pure soul.' Sankara, again, and in like manner taking no account of the etymology of the word, interprets it, on his own authority, by the conception that the qualities of purity, passion, and darkness, are perceptible by me; and that I, being distinct from them, am tlie spectator of their operations, eternal, heterogencous from the qualities, soul.'t * In his commentary on the Vishnu-sahasra-náma from the Mahibhárata, XIII., 7006 The definition to which Sankara accedes, may be from some Purána. It is not to be found in the legal institutes of Vyása, where I had hoped to meet with it. The passage in which this definition occurs, together with the verse wluich the passage explains, here follow : महर्षिः पिल्लाचार्यः तज्ञो मेदिनीपतिः। महर्षिः कपिलाचार्य इति सविशेषणमेकं नाम महाचासादृषिश्चेति महर्षिः कृत्स्न aze stara i ngàê ETTET9: 1 8fqÀ TITRE DET- त्मतत्त्वविज्ञानस्याचार्यश्चेति कपिलाचायः। महर्षिश्चासा कपिलाचार्थश्चेति मह- पिकपिलाचायः। शुद्या तत्त्वविज्ञानं साड् मित्यभिधीयते । इति व्यास ते। षि प्रसूतं कपि हान्तमिति श्रुतेः। सिद्धा । कपिला निरिति स्मृतेश्च । + सायं नाम दस र स्तमांसि गुणा मम दृश्या अहं तेभ्योऽ स्तद्यापार - fanar farcit T1 Fa fanal Gíts-bháshya, XIII., 12. The repugnance of the Vedantís to the Sánkhya can easily be illustrated. The word súnkhya, substantive or adjective, occurs, in the Bhagavad-gítá, in five several passages : II., 39; III, 3; V., 4, 5; XIII., 24; XVIII., 13. In three of these passages, the first, and the last two, the theory of Kapıla is clearly intended. Yet the commentators, who hold, with few exceptions, to the Vedánta, are most averse, in the majority of these cases, from owning that even the existence of atheism is recognised by the poem. In the three instances above mentioned, they, accordingly, explain sánkhya by átman, atma-tattwa, bhakli-s'astra, Brahma, para-pumán; sankhyá being defined, respectively, by tattwa-jnána, adhyátma-s'astra, bhakti, upanishad, upanishad. As renderings of the first, we also find dhyánun, jnana, paramátma-vastu-viveka, paramúrtha-vastu-viveka, vedanta, and yuthavasthita-vishayayá buddhyd nusanhita-nirnayah a conclusion induced on the cognition of a reality.' ..

·But, whatever may have been the sense originally intended, and perhaps now lost, of the term in question, it is not improbable that it carried a reference, more or less obscure, to the radical independence of scriptural authority, which may be affirmed of Kapila. In the comprehensive spirit of all Hinduism, it is true that he has frequent recourse to Vaidika vouchers* for subordinate articles of belief. Yet, in spite of this semblance of catholicity, it is obvious that the essentials of his system must be justified, if justified at all, rather by an appeal to reason than to revelation. The Sankhya, indeed, with all its folly and fanaticism, may, for a Hindu school of doctrine, Where Kapıla’s tenets are, in all likelihood, not alluded to, sánkhya is said to mean bhagavat and sannyása ; sankhyá corresponding to kártanátmikú bhaktih and samyag útma-mati. Additional synonymes of the former, similarly employed, are bhakta, bhakti, jnána-nzshtha, jnána-nishthá, jnúnin, nishp&pa-purusha, sannyúsin, s'uddhántahkarana, and s'uddha-chetas. S'ankara A'chárya ; Gítá-bhúshya • Rámánuja A'chárya; Gítá-bhúshya • Surya Pandit; Paramúrtha-prapâ. S'rídhara Swámí; Subodhıní Madhusúdana Saraswatí; Bhagavad-gitá-gúdhartha-dípıké. Kalyána Bhatta; Rasika-ranjaní. Jayaráma Tarkavágís'a ; Bhagavad-gitá-súrárlha-sangraha Sadúnanda Vyása; Bhagavad-gitá-bhiva-prakés'a. Pars'úcha-bhashya, by anon. : Kes'ava Bhatta; Gítá-tattwa-prakisikú Rámachandra Saraswatí; Gítá-tátparya-s'uddhi. Of these wiiters, Ráímánuja, Madhusúdana, Saclánanda, anil the anonymous author of the Pars'ácha-bhashya, refuse to hear of there being any allusion, in the Gítá, to the system of Kapıla. Adwaitánanda, in his Brahma-vidyabharana, an espositorial work connected with the Aphorisms of the Vedanta, suggests that the woril panchuvins'ati, adduced from the sacred writings as clemarking the number of the Sánkhya pimciples, may intend 20 x 5 instead of 20 + 5. In (lisproof of thus conceit, sce one of the Sanskrit extracts at p. 2, supra; and the Muhábhirala, XII., passin, but, particularly, chapters 307, 308, 309. + These citations from the Vedas can hardly be referred to a politic affectation of orthorloxy; to the quieting, on easy terms, of the misgivings of the unwary. The Jainas, who go the length of openly denying the divme Origin of the Vedas, and who repudiate their authority generally, yet sulmit it when reconcilable with their own tenets. As. Res., Vol. XVII, , P. 248.

·be allowed a fair share of circumspection. In its dogmatism it has restricted itself, for the most part, to the supersensuous, a phrase too frequently convertible with the indeterminate. It would, accordingly, often have been difficult to demonstrate that it was not in the right; and it has signified nothing that it was in the wrong : the Hindus never having been known to approve themselves, ethically, any worse for their atheism than for their What is more, the scrupulous vagueness with which it touches on the subject of matter, is, surely, something in its favour. It may have gone widely astray in the cloud-land of metaphysics; but it offers few parallels to the puerile hylology of the Nyáya. It may contravene the spiritual intuitions of humanity; but it has rarely called down the gods from Olympus, to move the derision of modern science. Other praise of the Sánkhya than this, would, however, scarcely consist with the exactions of just criticism. On the assumption that it has come down to us legitimately elucidated, it is next to impossible, notwithstanding its fantastic show of method, to trace, in it, a single vestige of consistency. As apprehended in the present day, correctly or incorrectly, it must, in short, be ranked, with every other, even the most perspicuous, scheme of atheism, as little better than a chaotic impertinence.* * The notion that the existence of God is susceptible of dialectic demonstration, has been surrendered, in later times, by most Christian theologians of any credit: it now being, more ordinarıly, maintained that our conviction of deity, on grounds apart from revelation, reposes solely on orginal consciousness, antecedent to all proof. The idea of God must, indeed, necessarily be postulated as the basis of all human speculation. See Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, passim. Kant declares that the various objective arguments for the establishment of theism, may be reduced to the telcological, the cosmological, and the ontological. All these, I am told, have been urged, by the Ilindus, in combating the Bauddhas, the Mímánsakas, and the Sánkhyas. But further investigation would be requisite before I could produce these arguments, as employed by the Bráhmans, with any approach to a complete exhibition.

·8 Indistinct allusion seems to be made, by the author of the Sankhya Aphorisms, to anterior* cultivators of the atheistic philosophy, and, in so many words, to 'venerable preceptors't of the theory. Of the latter, Sanandanaf alone is specified by name, and once only: but, equally with all the authorities less distinctly commemorated in company with him, his writings, if he erer wrote, have long been forgotten. Panchas'ikha, though, like Sanandana, expressly mentioned, is yet denied his honourable designation. On the first occasions where his opinion is reported, it is noted with disapprobation; and, in the sole remaining instancell where it is brought forward, it is dismissed No one of these arguments makes more directly against such atheism as that of the Sankhya, than the cosmological proof, or, rather, paralogism; it having been shown to be built on a logical fiction This argument is admirably put by Diodorus of Tarsus, who lived in the fourth century : * * ει δέ τις αγένητον λέγοι αυτών την τροπήν, το πάντων αδυνατώτερον εισάγει τροπή γάρ πάθος εστίν αρχόμενον, και ουκ άν τις είπoι τροπήν άναρχον και συντόμως ειπείν, των στοιχείων και των εξ αυτών ζώων τε και σωμάτων ή πάνσοφος τροπή, και των σχημάτων και χρωμάτων και των άλλων ποιοτήτων και ποικίλη διαφορά, μόνον ουχί φωνήν αφίησι, μήτε αγένητον μήτε αυτόματον νομίζεις τον κόσμον, μήτ' αύ απρονόητον, Θεόν δε, αυτούς και το είναι και το ευ είναι παρασχόμενον, σαφώς είδέναι και ůÔLOTÓKTUS êmiotaobai. PhotBibliotheca, ed. Bekker., p. 209, b. **** For change is an incident that has a beginning; and one woulil never speak of change as without a beginning. And, to be summary, the all-irise Change of the elements, and of the thence arising animate beings and bodies; and the intricate diversity of forms, and colours, and other properties; all but give forth an articulate voice, telling us not to think of the universe as unoriginated, or self-actuated, or, yet, without a Providence; hut to know of a truth, and to be unhesitatingly assured, that there is a God, who endowed them with both being and excellent being. * III, 41. A'cháryáh : V., 31. | VI., 69. § V., 32. || VI, 68. Vedántí Mahadeva, annotating V., 32, infers, simply from the name of Panchas'ıkha being given in the singular number, that Kapıla purposes to mark him as a separatist. The singular must, then, be ·9 with an air of sufferance rather than of approval. Of Sanandaula nothing is known further than that he is classed among the mind-engendered progeny of Brahmá.* Panchas'ikha is usually described in the same enigmatical terms:t but the Mahábhárataſ also speaks of him as having had a human mother, Kapılá; and it assigns him to the line of Parás'ara. S The Sánkhya philosophy is, nevertheless, ascribed, by indigenous tradition, to Kapila, || the putative author of the atheistic sentences, the Sánkhya-sútra and Tattwa-samása ; though the taken to indicate, as compared with the plural, an inferior degree of respect. But Sanandana, though dignified with the title of áchúrya, is yet spoken of, by Kapıla, in the singular number. Mahádeva's words are: free aga uthaÄaffa eyala | It may, however, be doubted whether the use, in Sanskrit, of the pluralis majestaticus be of any antiquity, notwithstanding Sáyana A'charya's opinion to the contrary. See Professor Wilson's Translation of the Rigveda, Vol. I., p. 201, foot-note. * See note at p. 15, infra. + See the same note. # XII., 7895. At XII., 7886, of the same work, it is said : यमाहुः पि सायाः परमर्षि प्र पिति । समन्ये तेन रूपेण वि पिति हि य ॥ “I can imagine that he whom the Sánkhyas call Kapila, the ighty sage, the patriarch, is, in person, under this form, exciting our admiration.' Such is the unmistakable sense of the couplet ; and so thinks Nilakantha Chaturdhara: 7 पिलः। तेन पछि सञ्जे । तत्प्रधिष्य त् तत्तुल्यत्वम् । Yet Professor Wilson understands the meaning to be, that Panchas'ıkha is here “named .... Kapıla.” Sánkhya-káriká, p. 190. Dr. Weber repeats this mistake : “ als auch Kapila heisst." Indische Studien, Vol. I., p. 433. Janaka, chieftain of Mithila, and disciple of Panchas'ıkha, says: पराशर गोत्रस्य वृद्ध महा नः। fa: q fat हिं शिष्यः पर : 11 XII., 11875. || In only a single text that I know of, is the Sankhya imputed to Shiva : Mahúbhárata, XII., 10388. At the same place, the Yoga also is said to have originated with this divinity. Swapnes'wara, acquainted as he was with the aphorisms of Panchas'ıkha, attributes to him the Sánkhya-sútra also. He accounts for its bearing the title of Kapila, by the circumstance that Kapila initiated the Sánkhya tradition as set forth in these aphorisms. By way of illustration, he adduces the с ·10 accuracy of this assignment rests, it seems probable, on no better evidence than the fact, that such treatises of atheism as existed prior to those attributed to Kapila, being superseded by his own more developed, or less incongruous, enunciations, were consigned, at an early period, to oblivion. But it does not seem imperative to include, among these ancient productions, the works of Panchas'ikha also.* Even conceding that Panchas'ikha, conformably to the ordinary account of him, was a disciple of A'suri,t who is, in turn, said to have studied under Kapıla ;I yet the measure of a scholastic notorious appropriation to Manu, of the code of laws set forth by Bhrigu. His meaning is, that Kapıla only propounded the matter of the Sánkhyasútra, whose present shape is due to Panchas'ıkha. He may, then, be supposed to set to the account of humility, the absence from Panchas'ıkla's name, in the Sánkhya Aphorisms, of the hononfic title of A'chárya. Against this it might be argued, that a saint so lowly would be likely to mention, at least a few times, the name of the leading rabbi of lus school. Yet, on the contrary, be refrains from all mention of Kapıla, while he twice speaks of himself. But, in justice to Swapnes'wara, it should be added that he gives what is repeated above, as nothing but rumour. Ilis words are : पञ्चशि : सूत्र पर teftfe: 1 offenfata grafstee 789- STUTTÀ: Tyh efFairfha #TFACT! * Colebrooke judges otherwise. Speaking of the Súnkhya-sútra, he says: “It is, avowedly, not the earliest treatise on this branch of philosoply: since it contains references to former authorities, for particulars which are but briefly hinted in the sutras; and it quotes some by name, and, among them, Panchas’ikha, the disciple of the reputed author's pupil : an anachronism which appears decisive.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 232. † Mahúbhúrata, XII, 7890, 7895. Elsewhere, Panchas'ıkha is spoken of as having been instructed, with Jaigishavya, by Kapıla lumself. Kumupurána, first section, chapter 9, sloka 119. See, also, the note at the foot of page 16, infra. | Bhagavata-puriņa, I., 3, 11. Also: #fffagia faäufe Flag12 कारुण्याद् भगवान् पर पिरासुरये जिज्ञासमानाय तन्त्र प्रावाच। Vyasa : Ptitanjala-bháshya, I., 25. Notice will be taken, in a subsequent page, of the discrepant explanations of the term ádı-vrdwán, in this passage. But the commentators are unanimous in understanding, by paramarshi, Kapıla.

·11 descent has no essential correspondence to that of a natural generation. More especially, the position that Kapila takes account of his own literary successor at the second remove, may be granted to offer but little violence to probability, if we simply suppose that the sage originally disseminated his tenets orally, and that they had undergone modification at the hands of sectaries from his proper school, before he committed them to a written form.* Panchas'ikha is known, by scanty fragments, as the author of a collection of philosophical aphorisms.t One other perform- * As an ungrateful alternative to silence, I have thus attempted to reduce to harmony, materials, in themselves, at first appearance, rather intractable; but which present, it may be, a distorted reflex of historical verity. As the first step in dealing rationally with the mind-born sons of Brahmá, we must consider them as brethren, not as brothers. But, rather than depart, in favour of common sense, from the strictest letter of the theogonies, I have found the pandits disposed to fall back on their grand solution of all difficulties as to time, space, and individuals, the transparently indolent dogma of cyclical renovations of mundane events. These iterations admitting of an indefinite number of changes as to particulars, any body may, at last, be every body; and it thus becomes a very easy matter to make light of ordinary chronological sequence. + A single one of them is given, as such, in Vyása's Pátanjala-bháshya, I., 3:9 tai thara xaqi Kshemánanda, in his notes on the Tattwa-samása, twice quotes this as a sútra ; and Váchaspatı Mıs'ra, Vijnána Bhikshu, and Nagojí Bhatta, consent in assigning it to Panchas'ıkha, In Vyása's Pátangala-bháshya we find, at II., खल्पः सङ्करः सपरि- हारः सप्रत्यवमर्षः कुशल नापकर्षायाल । क ात् लं हि बहन्यदा 47TTHETIMA: Raisa gandhi frafa i Of this passage, which is uncharacterised, by Vyása, except as being by Panchas'ıkha, the Sánkhyatattva-kaumudi cates the words खल्पः सङ्करः सपरिहारः सप्रत्यव र्षः। Swapnes'wara, in his annotations on the Kaumudi, still dissecting, says that the first three of these words form one aphorism, and the remaining word, another. So much for Panclas'ıkha's sútras ; and it may be questioned whether 13: C 2 ·12 ance, if not two, is likewise imputed to him; and he, perhaps, any more samples of them are forthcoming, notwithstanding Colebrooke's assertion that they " are frequently mted, and by modern authors on the Sankhya.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 233. The next work recorded as by Panchasſikha, is metrical; unless, indeed, as is quite possible, the longer extracts, to be given after the following couplets, belong, with one or more of them, to a treatise mixed of prose and verse. घिस्नु तो ज्ञानेन द्वितीयो राग ङ्क्षयात् । कृच्छ्रक्षयात् तोच व्याख्यातं मोक्षलक्ष ॥ This couplet is quoted, by Vijnána Bhikshu, in his Vignánámrita, with the following introduction : त्रिविधं मोक्षं मेणाह तवसमासा भाष्ये प शि चिार्यः। This is the best voucher I have for advancing that Panchas'ıkha commented on the Tattwa-samúsa, of which the words fafa BT RIE: do really constitute a topic. This couplet is again quoted, partially, by Vijána, in his Yoga-vártika, as well as in Bhává Ganes'a's Yogánus'ásana-sútra-orittı; and in full, by Kshemánanda on the Tattwa-samása, in the Sankhya-krama-dipiká, and by Bhává Ganes'a in the Tattwa-yáthárthya-dipana. Various readings of it are : adau for vidyas, hi for tu; vimoksho for tu moksho; kritsna for krichchhra , and kshayah for kshayit. Bhává Ganes'a, in his Yogúnus'ásana-sútra-vritti, refers the stanza just given, directly to Panchas'ıkha; but the same author, in his Tattwa-yáthár thya-dipana, introduces these verses, and the three couplets following, by expressions importing that they were borrowed, not from, but through Panchas'ıkha. पञ्चावंशतितत्त्वज्ञो यबकुत्राश्रमे स्थितः। टी ण्डो भि । वापि मुच्यते नात्र संशयः ॥ Variants: yatra-tatra for yatra-kutra ; ratah for sthitah ; and mundi ja s'akhi and s'ıkhí mundi jatí for jati mundé s'rkhí. प्रा तेन तु बन्धेन तथा वैकारिकेण च । दक्षिणाभि तोये बवा न्तुर्विवर्तते ।। Variants : prúkritena cha for prókritena tu; and baddho 'yam tu nigadyat baddho ninyena muchyate, and bandho 'yam cha nigadyate, for badd. jantur vivartate. तत्वानि यो वेद ते यथावगुण रूपाण्यधिदैवतं च। वि. पा । गतदोषसङ्घा गुणां भुङ्क्तेन गुणैः युज्यते ॥ Variants : chatwíri for tattwáni ; swarúpair for swarúpáni ; pepo 1 papmű ; and bhujyate for yujyate.

·13 le theistic Sánkhya as well as on the atheistic. re , m e couplets and that preceding them, the first and the third quotations, are also found in the Sankhya-krama-dipika. cited both there and in the Sánkhya-sútra-vivarana. een spoken of above; and the second is in Kshemáattwa-samúsa, and in Gaudapáda on the Sánkhya-kúriká. ervable that Bhává Ganes'a does not quote a syllable as Panchas'ıkha, that does not occur in the Sánkhya-kramaaccordingly, a presumption that Bhává Ganes'a took these is work, and under the impression that it was by Panchasuspicion is strengthened by the second exordial stanza of irthya-dipana, where its author clearly enough clai s to anchas'ikha on the Tattwa-samása: स्टूनमालम्ब्य व्या । पञ्चशि ण रुते तत्त्वयाथार्थ्यदीपनम् ॥ to Panchas'ikha, of the Súnkhya-krama-dipiká, if ever ned, would at once be invalidated by indicating the fact, Panchas'ıkha is made, in the work itself, supposed free from 2d in such a manner, namely, with the title of úchúrya, as to | from its author. extracted below have, in every case, the guarantee of good ieir being by Panchas'ıkha. They are given, in the first ása, in his Pátanjala-bhashya, anonymously: but three of atators; Váchaspatı Mıs'ra, in the Pátangala-sútra-bhashyana Bhikshu, in the Yoga-vártıka ; and Nágoji Bhatta, in the -vritti-bhúshya-chchhúy a-vyúkhyć ; testify, one, or all, to their s for the passage at II., 22, Váchaspati merely says that it i authoritative sage; but the two other scholiasts declare it as'ikha. नि नुविद्यास्मोत्येवं तावत् सम्प्रजानीत इत्येषा द्वयौ विशो T- ATET च प्रतिज्याति तीत्युच्यते यया योगिनश्चिनं स्थितिपदं- is quoted and expounded by Kshemánanda also, in the Nava- स मा नाभिप्रतीत्य त सम्पदमनुनन्दत्या सम्पदं वानस्त यात्मव्यापदं मन्वानः स सर्वाऽप्रतिबुद्द इत्येषा चतुष्पदा भवत्यविद्या निस्य काशयस्य च सविपाकस्य । II., 5. रुषमा परशीलविद्यादिभिर्वि मप न् यात् तत्रात्मबविं ..

·14 By the prevalent suffrage of mythology, Kapila* is reputed दि। दुः देतो तत्संयोगहेतुविद 'नात् स्यादयमात्यन्ति । दुः प्रतीकारः। परिहार्य प्रतो रदर्शनात् । तद्यथा पादतल भेद्यता कण्टकस्य भेत्तृत्वं परि- हारः कण्टक पादानधि निं पादत्राणव्यवहितेन वाधिष्ठानम् । एतत्त्रयं यो वेद लोके स तत्र प्रतोकारमारभमाणे भेदजं दुः नानाति । क ात् । त्रित्वोप- लब्धिसामात् । II., 17. अयं तु लु विष गुणेषु कर्टष्वकर्तरि च पुरुषे तुल्यातुल्यजातीये चतुर्थे तक्रिया- साक्षिपनौयमानान् सर्वभावानुपपन्नाननुपश्यन् दर्शन न्यच्छङ्कते। II , 18. अपरिणामिनो हि भोक्तशा रप्रतिसङ्गमा च परिणामिन्यर्थ प्रतिसङ्क्रान्लेव तह- त्तिमन पतति । तस्याश्च प्राप्तचैतन्योपग्रहरूपाया बुद्धिष्टत्तेर नुकारमात्रतया बुद्धिव- त्यविशि हि ज्ञ नत्तिरित्याख्यायते । II., 20. धर्मि मिनादिसंयोगाद्धर्ममात्राणामप्यनादिः संयोगः। II., 22. रूपातिशया वृत्त्यतिश्या परस्परेण विरुध्यन्ते सामान्यानि त्वतिशय. सह प्रव- तन्ते। तस्मादसङ्करः। य । रागस्यैब क्वचित् समुदाचार इति न तदानोमन्यवा. भाव. कि केवलं सामान्येन समन्वागत इत्यस्ति तदा तत्र तस्य भावस्तथा लक्षणस्य । III., 13. तुल्यदशश्रवणानामेक श्रुतित्वं सर्वेषां भवति । III., 40. Little can safely be conjectured with regard to the character of the work or works from which these sentences were collected by Vyása. They may be text; and they may be commentary. Probably they are Sánkhya; but, possibly, they pertain to the Yoga. That Panchas'ikha treated of other subjects than the Sankhya, may be inferred from a remark of Vijnána Bhikshu's : खप्रयो नाभावेऽपि विदुषां प्रवृ। पञ्चशिखाचा वा राय - प्रमाणयति। Yoga-vártika, I., 25. * The more ordinary mánasa, or mind-begotten, sons of Brahmá vary, as specified in different Puráņas, from seven to more than twice that number; “but," as Prof. Wilson remarks, "the variations are of the nature of additions made to an apparently original enumeration of but seven, whose names generally recur.” Vishnu-purána, p. 48, note 2. One such group is made up of Maríchi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu and Vasishtha; the well-known seven Rishis.' Mahábhárata, XII., 7570 and 13075. This list is modified, in the same book of the Mahábhárata, 7534-5, by the substitution of Daksha for Vasishtha: and, at 13040, by the addition of Manu; thus increasing the aggregate to eight. But, however eked out by Pauranika liberality, it is not this catalogue of Brahma's mind-born progeny that is to furnish us with Kapıla.

·15 Jeen a son of Brahmá; but he is otherwise described as Tilson once wrote as follows : “ The founder of the Sánkhya philoamed Kapıla; wlio, as one of the seven great Rishis, is one of the ihmá. There are other accounts of his origin; but none more satis- Quarterly Oriental Magazine for Sept, 1825; p. 12. That anywere styled one of the seven great Rishis," needs confirmaall the emphasis with which other accounts of him are here discreothing of this is to be found in the Translation of the Vishnu- 66 5 oke ---Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 229,--refers to Gaudapáda, of Kapila's being ranked as one of the seven great Rishis." the collocation of the words in the passage quoted by Gaudapáda, e has turned subject into predicate. The citation runs thus: पुत्राः प्तप्रोक्ता हर्षयः । These seven sons of Brahma were t Rishis.' group of kindred emanations likewise comprehends seven persons. thíbhúrata, XII, 13078-9, they are said to be Sana, Sanat-sujáta, anandana, Sanat-kumara, Kapıla, and Sanátana. In the passage all likelihood from some Purana, near the commencement of Gaudaimentary on the Sánkhya-káriki, Kapila still appears, but as introeral accredited Sánkhya doctors, to the extrusion of as many of his ociates : the list now standing thus; Sanaka, Sananda, Sanátana, pila, Vodhu, and Panchas'ıkha In the tarpand, or propitiation-serleast one school of the Veda, that of Mádhyandına, the same per- Lvoked, and in the same order, except that the names of A'suri and transposed. See Colebrooke's Miscell. Essays, Vol.I, p. 144. In the runa, latter section, Vishnu-vyúha-bheda-varnana chapter, 14, 15, changes, Kapıla himself makes way for another; the set now con- Sanaka, Sananda, Sanátana, Sanat-kumára, Játa, Vodhu,and Pancha- As. Res. Vol. XI, p. 99. The Kúrma-purúna, former section, chap. 9, with additional alterations, reduces the seven to five; Sanaka, Sanandana, Rúrú (Rudra 2), aul Sanat-kumára ; wliom it qualifies as The first three and the last of these five hold, apparently, pecuice in the family of Brahmú; since from them, according to Gaudahe forty-third Káriká, originated, severally, virtue, kuowledge, disud irresistible will. The names of these four also occur, unaccomif they were to be regarded as representative, at III., 12, 3, of the -purána.

·16 an incarnation of Vishnu.* He is also recounted to have been Sananda and Sanandana are, doubtless, prosodial varieties of the same name; and Játa seems to be put, by metrical licence, for Sanat-sujáta. In the Kúrma-purána, latter section, V., 18, parts of the two classes of Brahmá’s mental sons, several new characters being added to the first, are named together, thus : Sanat-kumára, Sanaka, Bhrigu, Sanátana, Sanandana, Rudra, Angiras, Vámadeva, S'ukra, Atri, Kapila, and Maríchı. But it is worthy of observation that this Purána plainly distinguishes the second class, as to origin, from the first. What is evidently intended for the first class, is detailed, at VII., 35—39, of the former section, as made up of Daksha, Maríchı, Angiras, Bhrigu, Atri, Dharma, Sankalpa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vasishtha; and the generation of these individuals, as there given, is very different from what it is in any of the accounts rendered by Prof. Wilson. See Vishnupurána, p. 50, note. For instance, the first and the last four are derived, respectively, from Brahmá’s prána, udána, vyúna, apána, and samúna. See, for these terms, Colebrooke's Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 356 and 374; also the Sánkhya-káriká, p. 103. At X., 84, of the same section, the whole eleven are denominated Brahmás; and Brahmá is stated to have created them by his power as a Yogí. See, also, Vishnupurúna, p. 49. Further particulars of interest occur at X, 122–125, of the latter section of the Kúrma-puráņa. Sanat-kumára is here said to have instructed Samvarta ; and he, Satyavrata : Sanandana, Pulaha; and he, Gautama : Angiras, Bharadwája : Kapıla, Jaigíshavya and Panchas'ıkla : Sanaka, Parás'ara ; and he, Válmíkı. This Purána is related, at its conclusion, to have been transmitted from Brahmá as follows. Brahmá communicated it to Sanaka and Sanat-kumára; Sanaka, to Devala; Devala, to Panchas'ıkha; and Sanatkumára, to Vyása. There is, clearly, no countenance, in the analogy of the Hindu hagiogony, for the else plausible surmise, that a complete history of the manasa sons of Brahmá, might, if recoverable, possibly go to show that the term by which they are known, may originally have borne a less mystical signification than that of mind-born. Its intention could never have been to discriminate the literate portion of the Brahmanidae from their less learned kinsmen * Mahabharata, III., 1896 and 8880. Rámáyana, I., 41, 2-4 and 25. At I., 41, 2–4, Kapıla's destruction of the sons of Sagara is predictel Pudmapurána, latter section, Vishnu-vyúha-bheda-varnana chapter. Vishnı-purána, p. 377. Bhágavata-purana, 1, 3, 11 ; where Kapıla stands the fifth of the twenty-four incarnations of Vishnu. See, also, at p. 6, supra, the verse from ·17 * born as the son of Devahúti;* and, again, is identified with one of the Agnis, or fires.t Lastly, it is affirmed that there have been two Kapilas : the first, an embodiment of Vishnu; the .. the Mahúbhúruta, XIII., 7006, with S'ankara A'chárya's commentary. See, further, the passage at p. 10, supra, quoted in Vyasa's Patanjala-bhashya. The later commentators on this work, Vijnána Bhikshu and Nágojí Bhatta, understand the word údr-vrdwán, or 'primeval sage,' to mean, here, Vishnu. Váchaspati Mıs'ra, though recognising Kapila as an incarnation of Vishņu, consulers 'primeval sage' to refer to the former, reappearing on earth after absorption into the divine essence. The remainder of Váchaspati's remarks are not very intelligible; or else my MSS. are corrupt. Schlegel, in his note on the Rámuyana, I., 41, 3, remarks: “De hoc Vishnûs cognomine et munere non habeo quod promam. Vix opus est monere plane hinc alienum est Kapilum, philosophiae rationalis (sánkhya) auctorem, quamvis et lunc discipuli nimis ambitiosi numinis plenum, imo ipsum in mortalı corpore pidesentem Vishnum fuisse iactaverint. Quam opinionem innuit auctor Bhagavad-gitae, LECT. X., 26.” It must now appear that the notion which Schlegel here dismisses so peremptorily, is much better fortified, by mythology, than he, to all appearance, apprehended. * Bhúgavata-purána, II., 7, 3; and III., 33, 1 The birth of the sage, and of his nine sisters, is here said to have taken place in the house of Kardama, the husband of Devahútı, who is called Kapıla's mother. Kapıla’s father, according to this account, must be Kardama; as there is no hint of anything like a miraculous conception. Kapıla, as here described, is, nevertheless, regarded, by some, as having afterwards become an incarnation of Vishnu. Kardama, if not one of Brahmá’s mind-born sons, was, at all events, a prajápati, or “patriarch." Vishnu-purúņa, p 50, note. In Colebrooke's Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 230, Devadúti is, of course, a misprint for Devahútı. Yet Lassen has adopted the former reading. Indische Alterthumskunde, Vol. I., p. 832. & D गतिर्देवो यो बिभर्ति ता न । कल्मषः क षाणां तो धाश्रित पिलं परमर्षि च यं प्रा यंतयः सदा । निः स पिलो ना ख्ययोगप्रवर्त :॥ Mahábhárata, III, 14196-7. It is the last line of these couplets which, with the exchange of s'ásli a for yoga, is cited at p. 232 of the present work. The self-styled Vedántí,' by wlich epithet Vijnána there denounces some unnamed author, for holding D ·18 other, the igneous principle in human disguise.* It must be acknowledged, in short, that we know nothing satisfactory con cerning Kapila; the meagre notices of him that are producible that the Sánkhya Kapıla was an incarnation of fire, has hitherto eluced my quest. Prof. Wilson, alluding to this text, of whose source he was unapprised pronounces, touching the identity which it authenticates, that “there does not appear to be any good authonty for the notion;" and adds, immediately afterwards : “Kapila is a synonyme of fire, as it is of a brown, dusky, oi tawny, colour; and this may have given rise to the idea of Agni and the sage being the same.” Sankhya-kúriká, p. 188 See, also, Colebrooke's Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p. 230. But it seems just as likely that the conception owed its origin to the fabled combustion, by Kapıla, of the sons of Sagara Mahúbharata, III., 8881. Also see As. Res., Vol. III. pp. 349, 350, and Vol VI, p 478. For Wilford's wild speculations in which he identifies Kapıla with Enoch, see As. Res., Vol. VI., pp. 473-4. * I quote at length, as the following passage will, in a subsequent page, again come under consideration : अथाबानादि शकर्मवासनासमुद्रनिपतिताननाथदीनानुद्दिधीषुः पर म पालुः तःसिद्धतत्त्वज्ञानो हर्षिभगवान् कपिलो दाविंशतिसूत्राण्युपादिक्षत् सूचनात सूत्रमिति हि त्पत्तिः। तत एतैः मस्तत ना सकल षष्टितन्त्राथाना सूचनं वति । इतश्चेदं सकल राङ्ख्यतीर्थमूलभूतं तीर्था राणि चैतत्प्रपञ्चभूतान्यव । सूवष ध्यायो तु व 177719ATTHua fumati ga I atranfaat त । पि बो भूता नारायणावतारमहर्षिभगवत्कपिलप्रणोतेति वृद्धाः । Sarvopakúrıní, ad mut. S'ankara A'chárya, in the S'ár íraka-mímánsá-bhúshya, I., 2, 1, also declares for two Kapılas. Implicitly following the Rámuyana, he considers the Kapıla who destroyed the sons of Sagara, to be an incarnation of Vásudeva or Vishnu; but he denies the origination, or revival, by him, of the atheistie system. Acknowledging another Kapıla, hım of the Sanklya, le makes, however, no attempt to ascertain him. The Bhágavata-purána, IX., 8, 13, flatly denies that this Kapıla could, with his gentle nature, intentionally have slain the sons of Sagara. Yet it makes no doubt that they were destroyed by fire issuing from the body of the incensed ascetic, independently of his volition. S'ankara A'chárya, commenting on the word Kapila in the S'wetás'uutarıupanishad, V., 2, proposes two interpretations of it. By one of them it is violently made to intend, as a lame synonyme, Ilıraṇyagarbha. Otherwise, ·19 being hopelessly involved in uncertainty, and inextricably em. barrassed by fable. Yet it may be credited, with but little hesitation, that he was something more substantial than a myth ;* and there seems to be tolerably good ground for receiving, as an historical fact, his alleged connection with the Sankhya. since primogeniture among created beings is found averred of both Kapıla and Hiranyagarbha, they are, to save scriptural consistency, concluded to be one and the same. On the other interpretation, the person named in the text is Kapıla of the Sánkhya, a partial incarnation of Vishnu. For the qualification of him as such, some unspecified Purána is adduced. S'ankara adds that the other Kapıla is celebrated in the Mundaka-upanishad. This statement is, however, made inadvertently, since no mention of him occurs there. S'ankara probably quoted, after the ordinary reckless Indian fashion, from memory. Dr. Roer has somewhat misrepresented Sankara, in making him cite suicidally the Purána above referred to. It is vouched, and professedly so, not to corroborate the first identification of Kapıla, but to elucidate the second. Neither, in this quotation, is Kapila, “to praise him," 6 identified with Hiranyagarbha.” See Bib. Indica, Vol. XV., p 62. It may be observed, generally, that, in conformity with Hindu usage, none but the figment of one's special idolatry, is glorified as a plenary incarnation. Kapila, in the Mahůdeva-sahasra-núma-stotra, Mahabharata, XIII., 1211, is an epithet of Siva; and expresses, as indicated by the context, 'tawny.' In an inscription translated by Colebrooke, there occurs the word kapilá, which, he observes, “probably is fire, personified as a female goddess." [sic] Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 300, last line; and p. 304, foot-note no. 21. It remains to be shown that the word ever means fire. In this place it bears, undoubtedly, the sense of a red cow;' from circumambulating which, great merit is supposed to be acquired “A red one] Kapıla : When applied to a cow, this term significs one of the colour of lac-dye, with black tail and white hoofs." Colebrooke's Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance, p. 131, second foot-note. For kapilá in this acceptation, see the Mahsbhárata, XIII., 2953, 3535, 3596, 3703-4, 3744, 3764; and, on the subject of circumambulating a cow, see the same poem, XIII., 3436 and 3794. * Colebrooke comes to a different conclusion. It may be questioned," “whether Kapıla be not altogether a mythological personage, to av hom the true author of the doctrine, whoever he was, thought fit to ascribe 12 co he says, ·20 The larger of the works presumed to be by Kapila, is comprised in six books of sútras* or aphorisms, which, as ordinarily 66 it” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p 231. But the Mahábhírata, in spite of its alloy of fiction, sufficiently attests, it would seem, the reality of the sage ; and the Súnkhya-sútra and Tattwa-samása may be pseudonymous, without vacating the existence of Kapila, or his character of originator, or early promulgator, of hylotheistic doctrines. In the Padma-purána, latter section, Gauri-varrana subdivision of the Kunúra-sambhava chapter, Kapıla is said to have dwelt in the village of Kalápa. Further particulars regarding this personage can, doubtless, be olstained, if the Kapıla-upapuroņa, which is named in the Kúrma-purúna and elsewhere, be still extant. The Kapila-sanhatá may be the same. See the Sanskrit Catalogue of the library of the As. Soc of Bengal, p 72. At p. 26 of this Catalogue occurs the name of Kapıla-smriti, or legal institutes of Kapıla. A work descriptive of certain places of pious resort, and another on naval astrology, attributed to Kapıla, have been found in the Peninsula. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. I, pp. 65 and 262. * Colebrooke-Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 231, 232-anhesitatingly applies the title of Sánkhya-pravachana to these sútras; but adds—ibid., p. 232-that it seeins to be a borrowed one. at least, it is common to several compositions. It appertains to Patanjali's Yoga-s'ástra." Undoubtedly it is borrowed; and I am disposed to date its use in question only from Vijnána Bhiksha. Apart from the writings of this author and of luis followers, I have nowhere met with the employment of Sánkhya-pravachana m place of Sánkhya-sútra, save in the postscript to Aniruddha's commentary, and in that to its abridgement by Vedántí Mahadeva. But the epigraphs to Indian manuscripts are known to be, so generally, the work of copyists, that the adverse evidence of these two seeming exceptions may, very allowably, be neglected. With regard to the meaning of the term Sánkhya-pravachana, which forms part of the title of the present publication, M. Saint-Hilaire could not have done better than consult our commentator, whose explanation of it he seems, however, to be unacquainted with. At p. 5 of his Premier Mémoire sur le Sânkhya, he translates these words by" Préface ou Introduction au Sânkhya." Sooth to say, this would be a strange sort of name for a complete dogmatic enunciation, by any philosopher, of his own theory; especially if, as happens with the Sankhya, the theory leaves almost no room for legitimate evolution.

·21 read, amount to five hundred and twenty-six.* Its fourth book is chiefly made up of proverbial sayings and brief hints of Mistaken as Vijnána probably is, in arguing that the Tattwa-samása not only preceded the Súnkhya-sútra, but formed its germ, there is no ground to mistrust his etymological analysis of the word pravachana as here used. At p. 7 of the present work, he explains it by prakarshena nirvachanam 'cletailed exposition;' and, at p 110, by prapancha explication.' Its import is, therefore, interpretation. Vijnána, in the Pátanjala-bhashya-vártika, Ist adhyaya, ad fin., again clefines the term sánkhya-pravachana-as the proper name, according to Vyása, of the Yoga Aphorisms-by words expressing detailed exposition :' साङख्यप्रवचन इति । साङ् मास्त्रस्यैव प्र र्षेण वचनं सायप्रवचनम्। Nagoji Bhatta, in his Pátangala-sútra-vritti-bhashya-chchháyá vyúkhyd, silently transeribes Viynāna's derivation : एतस्य साङ् प्रवचन त्वं तु साङ क्तिस्यैव प्रकर्षण वचनात् । Hac M. Saint-Hilaire not permitted his dependence on Colebrooke to supersede reference to Vijnana, he would have found that, on the statement of the latter, the Sinkhya-pravachana came after the Tattwa-samása; and that neither of them is described as standing to the other in a relation similar to that of prefice. Further on I shall take up this point again. * That is to say, in the six books, 164, 47, 84, 32, 129, and 70, respectively. As for this enumeration, even if it had not the support, by express dcclaration, of annotators, yet the tenor of their scholia would, in general, authorize it with sufficient distinctness But it is expressly supported, by notation, in all the copies of the pure text that I have consulted, and in most of the MSS. of Vijnána's commentary and of Nagoji Bhatta's abstract of it, that I have collated. Aniruddha, and his epitomist Mahadeva, of whose works such MSS. as I have examined likewise have the aphorisms numbered, concur, cssentially, in the forementioned distribution and aggregate. The only difference which they discover, consists in halving the 121st aphorism of book V.; thus bringing out the sum total, 527. See p. 207 of the present publication, and p. 33 of its appendix. M. Saint-Hilaire, precipitately accepting, without diplomatic verification, the Serampore edition of Vijnána's commentary, and unvisited by any the lenst suspicion of its faultlessness, computes the Sankhya aphorisms, in the six books, at 156, 46, 76, 30, 122, and 69; in all, 479. See Premier Mémoire sur lc Sânkhya, p. The consequence, to his essay, of this want of circumspection and rescarch, is not very advantageous. Neither need one be sure ·22 legends, illustrative of Sankhya topics; and its fifth is polemic, being devoted to a formal defence of the atheistic scheme. In prised that, leaning on the old edition of Vijnána, he should write thus : “Isvara Krishna, imbu des opinions de son temps, aurait pu prêter à Kapıla des pensées qui ne seraient pas les siennes.” Ibid., p. 69. The result of the otiose confidence above animadverted on, may in part be gathered from the particulars about to be noted. In the edition received by our essayist, I , 61 is lost in the commentary; and yet the 22d káriſá is, in good part, composed of it. With the same memorial couplet, VI., 32, also, is connected: but this aphorism, with most of the explanation of it, is omitted altogether. I., 87, which is degraded to commentary, fixes the number of the proofs admitted by the Sánklya, as stated in the 4th kariká. I., 118, which is in the same predicament with the aphorism last named. forms part of the 9th kárıká. I., 141, similarly circumstanced, may be found embodied in the 17th kúriká. I., 162, which is given as commentary, upholds the 6211 káriká M. Saint-Hilaire would have quoted II., 28, after the 28th kirikú, had it not been omitted-with nearly all its commentary. He would, also, at p. 444, have cited III., 18 and 19, if they had not been printed as shreds of scholia. The 50th káriká receives support from III., 43, which is, likewise, disguised by small type. Commenting on the 54th káriká, M. Saint-Hilaire employs language which significantly implies the entire and unquestioning reliance on the old edition of Vijnána, which has above been alleged of him. His words are as follows: Lecture 3, soûtra 44 [48]: 'En haut, il y a prédominance de la bonté.' Kapila ne va pas plus loin ; et après avoir indiqué, comme on l'a vu, l'existence des trois mondes en n'indiquant que le monde des dieux où règne la bonté, il ne dit point quelle qualité prédomine dans les mondes qui viennent après celui-là. Il est probable que la Kârıkâ, en faisant prédominer l'obscurité dans le monde mférieur, et le mal dans le monde du milieu, se conforme à une tradition dès longtemps reçue; mais, dans les axiomes du maître, ce complément à peu près indispensable de sa pensée n'apparaît pas, et il n'en a rien exprimé, pas même par une de ces réticences qui lui sont si habituelles. Il faut ajouter que le commentateur des Soûtras, Vidjnâna Bhikshou, ne s'est pas arrêté d'avantage à la doctrine que nous retrouvons C 66 ·23 addition to its special section of controversy, it, also, here and there, prefers in direct terms, or else darkly points to, exceptions dans la Kârıkâ, et qu'à la suite de Kapıla ıl a omis de parler des deux autres mondes, placés au-dessous du monde supérieur. Il se bore à dire que par en hauť Kapıla comprend le monde qui est au-dessus de la terre habitée par les mortels.” Premier Mémoire, &c., pp. 213, 214. The restoration of III , 49 and 50, which, with the explanation of them, do not appear in the Serampore impression of Vijnána, at once accounts for several items of the 54th kárikú, and completely frustrates the criticism, just quoted, which our essayist ventures. III., 53, which is reduced to commentary, is repeated, mostly, in the 55th káriku. To illustrate the 68th kúriká, M. Saint-Hilaire cites, instead of III., 56, which is omitted, the explanatory expansion of it. “Colebrooke a fait remarquer (Essays, tom. I., page 232) que les Soûtras attribués à Kapila mentionnaient le nom de Pantchasikha. Le fait est exact, et Colebrooke en tırait cette double conséquence : d'abord, que les Soûtras n'étaient pas de Kapıla lui-même, car il n'aurait pas cité le nom de son disciple, et, en second lieu, qu'il y avait pour le Sânkhya des autorités antérieures aux Soûtras, puisqu'ils invoquaient eux-mêmes le témoignage d'un maître plus ancien qu'eux. J'admets les deux conséquences signalées par Colebrooke. Mais il aurait dû ajouter que la citation rapportée par lui se trouve dans l'avant-dernier soûtra de tout le système. (Lecture 6, solltra 68). A cette place, les interpolations ont été plus faciles certainement que dans le corps même de l'exposition, et il est fort possible qu'une main étrangère ait glissé celle-ci à la fin de l'ouvrage. Cette simple indication du nom de Pantchasikha ne nous apprend d'ailleurs absolument rien sur la vie de ce personnage, elle ne fait que consacrer le souvenir d'une de ses doctrines." Premier Mémoire, &c, pp 253, 254. Now, in the first place, the suggestion bioached by M. Saint-Hilaire, that VI., 68, as being the penultimate aphorism of the Sánkhya-sútra, may, not improbably, be an interpolation, is weakened by the fact that it is followed by two aphorisms instead of one, and his objection now lies, by his line of argument, more directly against the text commemorating Sanandana, -VI., 69,—which, in his reading of Vijnána, is consigned to the notes. Again, both he and Colebrooke failed to observe V., 32, which, likewise, in Vijnána, as received by the former, is simply a scantling of commentary. The rest of M. Saint-Hilaire's reasoning, the bulk of which is, with such a lofty air ·24 objected by a fictitious postulant, or protagonist; appending, in antidote, the appointed solution of the difficulty suggested. In this procedure it is nowise singular among compositions of its order. Neither is it the only sample, in Indian literature, of an aphoristic treatise that possesses but slight pretensions to method. It abounds, moreover, in repetition. As compared with the aphorisms of the other philosophical schools, to those of the Sánkhya may, however, with all their elliptical obscurity, be conceded no inconsiderable credit for the degree in which they define their own tenor. In this respect they present, indeed, an observable contrast to the sútras of the Vedanta, to go no further; and the rationale of this contrast appears to be of no arduous discovery. As the creed purporting to represent the Vedas constituted the established faith, a compendium of its dogmas could securely count on a dispensation from that punctual scrutiny which would inevitably attend the symbol of a schism.* To the first would be wanting certain inducements of patronage, avowedly adopted from Colebrooke, has been dealt with already. See above, pp. 10, 11. Once more, our essayist would, in expounding the 57th kúrrkú, have cited VI., 40, had it not, in the old edition of Vijnána, been accounted expositorial ; a part of the mtroduction to it being, there, put in its place. * Nílakantha Chaturdhara, in his Shat-tuntri-sára, enumerates, as ástika or orthodox systems of philosophy, the Mímánsá, Tarka, and Vedanta ; and, as nástika or heterodox, the Chárváka, Saugata, and Arhata The Tarku, of the first class, he subdivides into the Sánkhya, Pátunjala, Vars'eshika, and Nyáya ; and the Saugata, of the second class, into the Sautrántika, Vaibhashika, Yogáchára, and Mádhyamika. Proceeding to particulars, this writer gives some account of a singular theory, additional to those above named, by one Misra. As never having been alluded to by any European writer, it may be thought not undeserving of a summary note. The most remarkable characteristic of this theory consists in the exotic innovation of doing away with the ultimate resolution into the primal cunse, of matter and all subaltern forms of intelligence. The diverse allotinent, to different mortals, of mundane fruition, in the case of original appearances ·25 to precision, which could scarcely fail to weigh gravely with the other; and, if acceptable in the gross, it might easily be entrusted to the casual care of expositors, for the redress of its laxities. As for the second, on the other hand, as anticipating every species of opposition, its compiler would industriously labour to diminish the chances of conflict, by, first of all, studying to avoid ambiguity; and, further, the proselyte to a new belief would naturally be solicitous for a precise enunciation of the tenets he had received in return for those he had discarded. Accordingly, though the aphorisms of the Vedanta may have been posterior to those of the Sankhya, there seems good reason why the first should not have striven so strenuously as the other, against the hazard of misconstruction. That the latter is by no means so capable of various interpretation as the former, is incontestable. That it would prove to be so, might, perhaps, even be argued from the consideration that the Sánkhya has never, within historical knowledgc, lapsed from unity; whereas on the stage of life, is referrel, by it, to the influence of the face of the Horoscope at conception and birth. The preeminently devout are, at death, translated to a place of bliss, and are thenceforth exempt from carthly vicissitudes. Ignorant evil-doers are consigned, by divinc messengers, to a region which is vaguely said to be inferior to paradise; and their resurrection in this world, or other subsequent change of state, appears to be unprovided for. Conscious transgressors are tormented in the flames of Tartarus, till the beginning of a new cycle; and are then rcendued with their former bodies. With these persons, the deeds of the past life have, declaredly, a retributive efficacy. Such as presumptuously pretend to oneness with the Deity,—by whom the Vedántís are plainly signified, --suffer, in their subtile frames, the dolors of perdition, till the end of the current day of Brahmá; and are then ejected from their gross corporeal investments. This last expression is unintelligible; and the text is, here, very likely, adulterated. Miséra, on the representation of his critic, lays claim to one or more Upanishads, a Purána, and the Udas'aráva-brúhmand, as lending colour to his sentiments. Two branches from his proper school are hinted at; their deviation from the heresiarch being intimated to hinge on the nature of the godhead. Nílakantha truculently retaliates the severity of Mis'ra to- E ·26 the Vedanta has notoriously ra ified into several distinct and irreconcilable denominations, As already remarked, besides the book of aphorisms just dis- . wards Vedantís, by denying to him and to los followers, every prospect of reaching the sphere of Brahmá. He refuses them fellowship with the Hindu communion ; and reviles them, under the epithet of brutes of the Lord,' for impiously maintainiug that celestial blessedness is attended with a sense of selfhood. The bare title of Mıs'ra is usually appropriated, I learn, to Váchaspati Mıs'ra the jurist. Here, however, it may, possibly, designate the elder writer of the same name, the pneumatologist. As conducing to sustain this conjecture, I may mention a rumour, prevalent among the learned Ilindus of Central India, that this writer, late in life, put forth a disquisition, believed . to have perished, on incognisable matters generally; in which, no doubt scandalızıng the conservatism of his age, he evinced a marked disposition to think, within limits, for himself. At all events, the origination, on Indian soil, of a system that strikes at the very root of pantheism, is a phenomenon well worthy of remark. It may, indeed, almost be taken to imply an acquaintance with some religion of the West; though, in teaching that creation, sentient and inert, proceeds from the Deity as scel, it is evident that Mıs'ra had not risen to the Christian and Muhammarlan dogma of genesis without a material cause. His implied restriction to the luman species, of a future life, is, also, a striking reduction of the range accorded, by most oriental nations, to the economy of metempsychosis. Of Nílakantha's Shat-tantri-sára I have been able to procure only the fourth and last chapter, and but a single copy of this fragment. The treatise is in verse, with a prose paraphrase and a commentary; the wliole by the same author. It is said to have been written within the last century and a half. * Notwithstanding their fundamental disparity, a general similitudlc pervades the Sankhya and the Yoga. In some of the earliest aut] ties they are, alse, repeatedly mentioned in combination. Their iterdependence, likewise, is incontrovertible. That the Yoga implies the existence of the Sánkhya, does not require to be proved; anıl a reference to the Sánkhyasútra equally discovers that it contemplates not a few of the fanatical notions and practices detailed in the aphorisms of the Yoga. It may, therefore, not unreasonably be concluded that the Sankhya and the Yoga, whatever their era, or the age of their supposed earliest text-books, were of nearly contemporaneous origin. *** ·27 missed, a scanty index* to the topics of the Sánkhya, entitled Tattwa-samása, is referred to Kapila. The articles that make * The distribution of the Sankhya system into twenty-five cardinal principles,-namely, eight producers, sixteen productions, and spirit,-is as old as the Mahábhárata. See foot-notes to pp. 2 and 6, supra. The crazy digest of these principles, laid down in the Bhágavata-purána, III., 26, 10 seqq., argues forcibly the recent origin of this crude farrago. The topics of the Sankhya, as diversely exhibited in the several editions of the Tattwa-samúsa, will receive full attention presently. But another classification of these topics, which computes them at sixty, is propounded in the commentaries on the Tattwa-samása, and in the Rája-vártıka as quoted in the Sáukhya-kaumudi and Sarvopa kúrini. The passage from the Rúga-vártika runs as follows: प्रधानारि त्वमेक मर्थवत्वमथान्यता। पारायं च तथाने - वियोगा योग एव च ।। श्रेषत्तिरकर्टत्वं मालिकार्थाः ATT ET! विपर्थयः पञ्चविधस्तथा । नव तुय्यः ।। करणानामसामीम विंशतिधा मतम् । इति परि: पदार्थानामष्टाभिः सह सिद्धिभिः ।। Fifty of these topics, the intellectual creation,' offer no difficulty, at least in the immediate subdivisions of this aggregate. These are: the five species of obstruction, the nine of acquiescence, the twenty-eight of disability in the organs, and the eight of perfection. The remaining ten are: (1) the existence, (2) the simplicity, (3) the objectiveness, and (4) the subservience, of nature; (5) the distinctness, (6) the multeity, and (7) the passiveness, of spirit; (8) the disjunction of nature from spirit, (9) the conjunction of nature with spirit ; and (10) the continuance of the body after the acquisition of saving knowledge. Prof. Wilson--Sánkhya-káriká, pp. 191-2--completes, in some sort, this set of ten radical facts;' but only by copying Váchaspati where he supplements the text, and by misunderstanding him both there and elsewhere. Váchaspati connects existence with both spirit and nature;' and yet in order to make but one category of the whole, namely, the existence of spirit and nature.' Prof. Wilson makes two: “existence of soul" and s existence of nature.” Again, Váchaspati explains s'esha-vritti, by sthiti, which he refers to sthúla and súkshma. Prof. Wilson, dividing, as before, gives two categories, “ duration of subtile” and “ that of gross." Viyoga and yoga are left, by Váchaspati, unexplamed, as being too obvious to demand elucidation. Prof. Wilson throws them out altogether. E 2 ·28 up this jejune catalogue, are misnamed sútras ;* and their number, as fixed by different commentators, ranges from twentytwo to twenty-five. On the strength of internal evidence, thcir posteriority to the larger aphoristic treatise is scarcely matter The commentaries on the Tattwa-samása cite the ensung couplet for an enumeration of the ten radical facts : अस्तित्वमेकत्वमथार्थवत्त्वं पारायं मन्यत्वमकर्टता च । योगो वियोगा बहवः पुमांसः स्थितिः शरीर च षटत्तिः ।। The term astitwa 'existence,' here used, is explained by the other commentators as it is by Váchaspati. Vis'esha-vrittih is, in some JSS., substituted for cha s'esha-vrittih. Its import is represented as above. Sce, regarding it, the sixty-seventh kárká of I's'wara Krishna. In an anonymous marginal note to one of my MSS. of the asnkhi nylkúrikt, I have found the verses given above from the Rújue-vúrtikut, with the following stanza in place of their first couplet and a half: पुरुषः प्र तिर्बुद्धिरहङ्गारो गुणा यः । त त्रिमिन्द्रियं भूतं मौलिकाथाः स्मृता दश ।। Here the fundamental categories are: (1) spirit, (2) nature, (3) intelligence, (4) egotism, (5-7) the three qualities, (8) the subtile elements, (9) the organs, (10) the gross elements. See, also, the Súnkhyu-korikil, p. 192. * The Sarvopak áriņi commentary counts but tirenty-two; as follows: हा प्र तयः ॥ १ ॥ षोडश विकाराः॥ २ ॥ पुरुषः ॥ ३॥ बैगुण्यसञ्चरः ॥ ४ ॥ प्रतिस रः ॥ ५ ॥ अध्यात्मम् ॥ ६ ॥ अधिभूत ॥ ॥ ७ ॥ अधिदैवम् ॥ ८ ॥ पञ्चाभि- वयः ॥ ६॥ पञ्च कर्मयोनयः ॥ १०॥ पञ्च वायवः ॥ ११ ॥ पञ्च कमात्मानः ॥ १२ ॥ पञ्चपाविद्या ॥ १३ ॥ टाविंशतिधाशतिः ॥ १४ ॥ नवधा तुष्टिः ॥ १५ ॥ यम- धा मिद्धिः ॥ १६ ॥ दश मूलि । ॥ १७ ॥ अनुग्रहसर्गः ॥ १८ ॥ चतुर्दमानिया भूतसर्गः ॥ १६ ॥ विविधो बन्धः ॥ २० ॥ विविधो मोक्षः ॥ २१ ।। त्रिविधं प्रमा- पाम् ।।२२।। एतद् याथातथ्यम् । एतत् सम्यग् ज्ञाला त त्यः स्यान् न पुनखि- विधेन दुः नाभिभूयते। The topic traigunya-sanchara is given as two, in all the other commentaries. It is only by this bisection that the Sánkhya-sútra-vivarana clil'ers from the Sarropakúrini ; and thus exhibits twenty-three so-called sútras. The Súnkhya-krama-dipikú recites, at its commencement, twenty-five topies; but by obvious error; as it reduces them to twenty-four, by foregoing all exposition of the words trwidho dhétv-surgah, which occur after the top given above as the nineteenth. The MS. from which Dr Ballantyne printeri the work in question, seems to be peculiar in reading trividho dhutu-san- U ·29 of uncertainty :* and they add nothing to our knowledge of Kapila's system, except in having elicited annotations which lay 66 sargah. In the preface to the Sánkhya-tattwa-vilása, where the Tattwaa samása is quoted, as if from the Súnkhya-krama-dípeki, and briefly explamed, the expression trividho dhátu-sargah is explained by the words váta-pitta-kapha-bhedát trividhah, as intending the assemblage of wind, choler, and phlegm. Colebrooke, by the way, translating from Jagannatha Tarkapanchanana, mistakes in construing the term dhátu-varshamya by pernicious power of mineral drugs.” Digest of Hindu Law, &c., Vol. III., p. 304: 8vo. ed. Cf. Colebrooke's Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inlıertance, p. 361, para. 2. The exact equivalent is, in our antique medical nomenclature, distemper of the humours.' The Hindu physiology reckons the humours at three only. The Sánkhya-krama-dípkú gives, after no. 22 as above, the words trivia dhe duhkham, as a topic. The reading of the Tattwa-yáthárthya-dipana corresponds to that of the Sánkhya-krama-dipıká, barring its rejection of trudho, &c., and its considering the words etad yáthátathyam as a topic, thus actually giving twenty-five as the total. Kshemánanda, in his annotations on the Tattwa-samása, states that it contams twenty-five topics : but he cnumcrates only twenty-four, his text homg, as far as the words etad yuthulathyan, identical with that of the Tuttwa-ydtharthya-dipana. The Tattwa-samása is generally found appended to Vedántí Mahádeva's Sánkhya-vritti-séra, and according to the reading of the Sarvopazúriņi. Mahadeva, however, perhaps for the sake of shortness, omits the two sentences by which the topics are usually followed. The ciglıth topic is read, in the Sinkhyu-sutra-vivarana, adhidaram cha, and athrarvatan cha, in the Súnkhya-kruma-dípikıi, in the Tattwa-yúthárthyu-dipand, and in Kshemánanda on the Tattwa-samesa, The Sarvopakirini, in its seventeenth topic, is unique in preferring das'a to das'adhú. Of the sánkhya-rama-dipiká I have collated five MSS. * The anonymous author of the Survopakórini relates, as an ancient tradition, that Kapıla the incarnation of Vishnu composed the Tuttwasamist, and that, in aftertines, another Kapila, a manifestation of the divinity of fire, put forth the larger Sánkhya Aphorisms, of which the Compendium of Principles' is the rudiment. The same tradition makes the doctrines of other, unnamed, philosophucal schools, besides the Sánklya, 210 less than the Collection of Sıx Books,' to have sprung from the Tattwa- ·30 under contribution sources presumed to be, in their integrity, no longer forthcoming. samása. These observations will be found, in the Sanskrit, in a foot-note to p. 18, supra. Vajnána Bhikshu says: “If it be alleged that the Tattwa-samása aphorisms are simply recited in the Collection of Sıx Books, the answer is, that It is not so. There is no mere repetition among them; inasmuch as they are, respectively, concise and expanded. Hence, the appellation of S&nkhyapravachana is appropriate for the Collection of Sıx Books, in like manner as it is for the Institute of the Yoga. The former embraces precisely a detailed exposition of the Tattwa-samása, the shorter Sánkhya Institute. There is this difference, however, that the Collection of Six Books only expands the subject matter of the Tattwa-samúsa ; whereas the Institute of the Yoga avoids their seeming deficiency, by expressly propounding God, whom both the other works, by concession for sake of argument, deny.' For the original of this extract, see page 7 of the present work. Our commentator, at p. 110, grows more confident ; passing from the language of assumption, as it were, to that of positive assertion : Tlus Institute, equally with that of the Yoga, as being a developement of the substance of the shorter Sánkhya Aphorisms, is designated Súnkhya-pravachana, or, Explication of the Sánkhya.' Colebrooke, having in view a portion, if not all, of these remarks, writes as follows: " It appears, from the preface of the Kapıla-bhúshya, that a more compendious tract, in the same form of sútras or aphorisms, bears the title of Tattwa-samása, and is ascribed to the same author, Kapila. The scholiast intimates that both are of equal authority, and in no respect, discordant, one being a summary of the greater work, or else this an amplification of the conciser one. The latter was probably the case; for there is much repetition in the Sánkhya-pravachana. “ If the authority of the scholiast of Kapıla may be trusted, the Tattwrsamása is the proper text of the Sánkhya ; and its doctrine is more fully, but separately, set forth by the two ampler treatises entitled Sunkhyu-pruvachana, which contain a fuller exposition of what had been there succinctly delivered.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 231, 232. Dr. Roer,-- Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal for 1851, p. 402, note,- after citing the latter of the paragraphs given above, unaccountably aclıls : “ but this is a misapprehension: the scholiast does only say: 'they are of equal authority, one being a summary of the greater work, or else this is ·31 The commentaries on the Sánkhya-sútra are as follows: I. The Aniruddha-vritti, by Aniruddha.* Of this author's history I know nothing. II. The Sánkhya-vritti-sára, by Mahadeva Saraswatí,t more amplification of the conciser one." On the contrary, as will have been seen, the scholiast allows no such alternative, and is responsible for only the second member of it. Colebrooke would seem to hare misunderstood the word ubhayoh ; and he has, besides, made out Vijnána to be self-contradictory. At the same time, the clause to which Dr. Roer excepts, is almost a literal translation of Vajnána's own words. M Saint-Hilaire says, speaking of the Sankhya Aphorisms: « Ce traité, quoique assez court, a été abrégé, dit-on, par Kapıla, sous le titre de Tattra- Samasa, c'est-à-dire, réduction substantielle du Sânkhya, Nous ne conpaissons ce dernier ouvrage que par les citations qu'en ont faites les commentatcurs, et qu'a répétées Colebrooke d’après eux (Essays, tome I., p. 231).” Premier Mémoire sur le Sânkhya, p. 5. Ilcre, again, Colebrooke is implicitly followed as translator of Vajnána ; at what cost, will already have appeared. Moreover, the phrase "reduction substantielle" scarcely answers to Tattwa-samása; and Colebrooke would be explored in vain for a single quotation from the smaller treatise. Viznána plainly rests the validity of adjudging the title of Sánkhya-pravuchana to the Sánkhya-sútra, on the ground that these aphorisnis are an expansion of the Tattwa-samása ; the Tattwa-samása being, again, the cmbryo of another collection of aphorisms called Sunkhya-pravachana, those of the Yoga. But this derivation of the Yoga-suítra falls, in the first place, to be established; and, even if established, Vijnana would still require a fact or two more to help him faiıly to his conclusion. It may be suspected that his sole foundation of fact, in the passage given at the outset of this note, is the common application of the term Súnkhya to the system called from Kapıla and to that of the Yoga. * For evidence that Aniruddha was antecedent to Vijnána Bhikshu, see the Appendix to this volume, pp. 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12. of Maliádeva is likewise author of a Vedanta treatise, the Tattwúnu. sandhcína. See my Catalogue of Sanskrit Books, &c, Vol. I., p. 97. He has also written a commentary on the Amara-kos'a, entitled Budha-manohara. Of this work I have one copy of the first two books, and another of the sccond only. The latest authouty, of ascertained date, quoted in this fragment, is Ráya Mukuța, who was employed on his commentary in the ·33 VI. The Rája-vártika, said to have been composed by, or for, Raņaranga Malla, sovereign of Dhárá.* Such commentaries on the Tattwa- samása as have been procured, will now be named. I. The Sarvopakárini, by a nameless writer. II. The Sánkhya-sútra-vivarana, also by an anonymous author, III. The Sánkhaya-k'ama-dípika, Sáoakley Glakára, or Sákhya-sútra-prakshepiká ;t likewise of unknown paternity. lectively, S'ri-kás' é-rúja-ságara. I have seen at least twelve or fifteen works by its author, who composed largely in Hindi and Marahatti, no less than in Sanskrit. * For this appropriation I am indebted to the learned Pandit Kás'ínátha S'ástri Ashtaputra, of the Benares College. The Pandit is by far too well acquainted with Bloja Rájá's commentary on the Yoga-sútra, to have mistaken it for the Rúja-vértika The latter treatise, he assures me, was in his possession several years, during which he constantly lectured on it to his pupils. The only surviving extract from this work, generally known, is found in the couplets quotell, by Váchaspati Miséra, near the end of the Sánkhyakaumudi ; and in the Sarvopakórıņi. They have been cited in the note at p. 27, supra † This work was published and translated by Dr. J. R. Ballantyne, in 1850; pp. 65, 8vo. Its titles were, at that time, unascertained. Dr Rocr-Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1851, p. 405- states that the author of the Sunkhya-tattwa-vilása imputes this work to A'suri; but he contests the credibility of this attribution, on the showing of the commentary itself. It does not positively appear, however, that the author of the Sánkhya-tattwa-vilisa is speaking of the Sánkhya-kramadipiku. For Panchas'ıkla as scholiast of the Tattwa-samása, see p. 12, supra, foot-note. To revert once more to A'suri: since the first sheet of this preface was prmted, a commentary on the Shad-dars'una-samuchchaya has been procured, in which occurs the only passage attributed to this sage, that has yet offered itself to view. It is as follows: F ·34 IV. The Tattua-yáthárthya-dipana, by Bhává Gaņes'a Díkshita,* son of Bhává Vis'wanátha Díkshita, and pupil of Vijnána Bhikshu. V. An unnamed volume of annotations, by Kshemánanda, son of Raghunandana Dikshita. The Sánkhya-káriká, by I's'wara Krishņa, ranks, in Hindu estimation, and deservedly, foremost among the Sánkhya comfafaneaglevat alat Atatsetaatai प्रतिबिम्बोदयः च्छे यथा चन्द्रमसोऽभसि ॥ The Shad-dars'ana-samuchchaya, I now find, has, for its author, Haribhadra Súri The commentary on it, to which reference is here made, the Shad-dars'ana-vritti, is by Cháritra Sınha Gaņı, disciple of Mati-bhadra Ganı, disciple of Bháva-dharma Gani, a scholastic successor of Jina-bhadra Súri, disciple of Jina-rája Súri. Hari-bhadra Súri gives an account of the origin of the word Sánkhya, which, as being altogether novel, deserves to be produced. While acknowledging the connection of Kapıla with the Sánklıya, he alleges that the followers of this doctrine receive their appellation from the first doctor of their school, Sankha or Sankha. His words are: Testerfi for at free द नम्। दिपुरुषनिमित्तेयं सना। And, elsewhere : साङ्ख्य इति पुरु- निरित्तेयं सञ्चा। सध इमे साङ ः। तालव्यो वा शरः। भजनामाऽऽ- दिपुरुषः। * He has also commented on the Yoga-sútra, in the Yogánus'ásana-sútravritti. Another of his works is the Prabodha-chandrodaya-chich-chandriká, or scholia on the Prabodha-chandrodaya drama. † Author, also, of the Nava-yoga-kallola, or Nyáya-ratnákara ; a concise treatise explanatory of the Yoga Aphorisms. He describes himself as belonging to a Kányakubja family of Ishţikápura,mour barbarized Etawah, I am told. The only copy I have inspected of Kshemánanda's notes on the Tattwa-samása, is imperfect in its latter half. $ The history of I's'wara Krishna is utterly unknown. Swapnes/wara, in the Kaumudi-prabhá, makes him one with Kálıdása : T maT atra- दामेन कृताः कारि | These words are continuous with the extract given in a foot-note to p. 10), supra. The only two MSS. of the Kaumudi-prabhá that I have seen, are defective at the conclusion, where Swapnes'wara may, perhaps, have enlarged on the traditional identity which he reports.

·36 II. The Sánkhya-tattwa-kaumudi, or Sánkhya-kaumudi; by Váchaspatı Misra,* pupil of Mártanda-tilaka Swámí. Gaudapáda's Bháshya on the Súnkhya-kárké, including the Memorial Verses, was published, by Professor Wilson, at Oxford, in 1837. Prefixed to the originals is the Professor's translation of the commentary, accompanying Colebrooke's version of the text. * There seem to have been two learned Hindus of the name of Václaspati Mis'ra. Of the lawyer so called, Colebrooke says : “No more than ten or twelve generations have passed since he flourished at Semaul in Tirhút." Digest of Hindu Law, &c, Preface, p. xix. : 8vo. ed. of 1801. The same writer, after speaking of Váchaspati Mıs'ra, the author of the Bhúmatí nibandha, goes on to remark: “ This is the same Váchaspati whose commentaries on the Sánkhya-kuriká of I's'wara Chandra [Krishna), and on the text and gloss of Patanjali's Yoga and Gotama's Nyd ya, were noticed in former essays. He is the author of other treatises on dialectics (Nyúya), and of one entitled Tattwa-bindu, on the Púrva-nímánsá as it is expounded by Bhatta. All his works, in every department, are held in high and deserved estimation." Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 332-3. It hence appears as if Colebrooke recognised this Váchaspati as distinct from some other, -- from the jurist, in all probability. This distinction seems, in truth, to be indisputable; and yet I am unable to pronounce on the precise date that should be assigned to Váchaspati the lawyer; and materials fail me to verify the decision as to his age, cited above from Colebrooke. In the Dwaita-nirnaya, he mentions that he wrote that work at the instance of Jayá, consort of Bhairava Rájá, and mother of Purushottama; but he enters into no further particulars. In another of luis tracts, however, the Vwáda-chintímani, he alleges that, with a view to composing it, he had consulted, with other works, the Ratnákara. Now, the Ratnákara is known to have been prepared under the superintendence of Chandes'wara, minister of Harasınha Deva, son of Blaves'a, princes of Mithilá; and it specifies, as the time of its publication, the S'ala year 1236, or A. D. 1314. Beyond this point, Váchaspati the lawyer cannot, then, be carriell into antiquity. The elder Váchaspati Misra is several times quoted in the Sarva-dars'anasungraha of Madhava A'charya ; and his gloss on Vyása's Yoga-bhúshya, as likewise his Tattwa-kaumudi, is there mentioned in conjunction with his name. According to Colebrooke, --Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 301,- ·37 This treatise has, in turn, furnished occasion for several expositions. Such are: 66 “Mádhava flourished towards the middle of the fourteenth century.” The no more than ten or twelve generations which Colebrooke reckons back from 1796 to Váchaspati the jurist, would be exhausted, even if Indian life averaged so many as three descents and a half to a century, long before we reached the time of Mádhava A'chárya. Moreover, I have seen a copy of part of the Bhámati-nbandha, which was transcribed in the Samvat year 1428, or A. D. 1372,-a date irreconcılable with Colebrooke's computation. Váchaspati, in the brief enumeration, at the close of the Bhámaté-nibandha, of his own compositions, eight in number, does not name, among them, a single one on jurisprudeace. This list, as expanded in the Vedánta-kalpataru, embraces the following works: one on the Nyáya, the Nyáya-vártikatátparya-tíkú; one on the Sankhya, the Tattwa-kaumudi; one on the Yoga, the Tattwa-s'éradí; one on the Mímánsá, the Nyúya-kanıkú, a gloss on the Vidhi-viveka ; one on Bhatta's exposition of the Mímánsá, the Tattwa-bindu; two on the Vedanta, the Tattwa-sainikshú, which is commentary on the Brahma-siddhi, and the Bhúmatí. Váchaspati does not profess to confine himself, in this catalogue, to his writings of a certain class. Neither have we any hint that he was an author by proxy. These works must, of themselves, have cost good part of a life of study; and it is scarcely probable that, had the philosopher also become famous as a legal authority, his twofold character would not be celebrated, to this day, among the learned of India. Several of these works are no longer known to exist. There is some uncertainty whether Lattwa-s'áradí be another name for the Pátanjalasútra-bhashya-vydkhyű, but it seems, from the Vedanta-kalpataru, to be so. Colebrooke is, perhaps, incautious in saying that Váchaspati " is the author of other treatises on dialectics,” besides the Nyáya-vártıka-tátparya-tiká. Váchaspatı, in the Bhámatí-nibandha, speaks of himself as living in the reign of one Nriga Rájá. Common fame makes him to have been a native of Tırhút; and his family name, Mıs'ra, marks him as a native of Gangetic Hindusthán. Colebrooke-Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p. 233--seems to be of opinion that the title Lattua-kaumudi is applied to Váchaspati's Sánkhya work only by comparatively recent abbreviation. But the concluding distich of the book ·38 a. The Tattwa-kaumudi-vyákhyá, by Bháratí Yati, pupil of Bodháranya Yati. b. The Tattwárnava, or Tattwámrita-prakás'ini ; by Rághavánanda Saraswatí,* disciple of Adwayánanda or Adhwaryu Bhagavat-páda, disciple of Vis'wes'wara. C. The Kaumudi-prabhá, by Swapnes'wara, son of Váhinís'a. + d. The Tattwa-chandra, by Nárayana Tirtha Yati,f pupil of Vasudeva Tirtha, and disciple of Ráma-govinda Tírtha. e. The Sánkhya-tattwa-vilósu, Sánkhya-vsitti-praktis' a, or Sánkhyártha-sankhyáyika ; by Raghunátha Tarkavágís'a Bhatțáchárya, son of S'iva-ráma Chakravartí, son of Chandravandya, itself, if not spurious, contains the shorter form. It also occurs in the list of Váchaspati's works, as lately detailed; and in Málhava Arhárya': Sarva-dars'ana-sangraha. The Sánkhya-kaumudi was publislıcd in Calcutta, in the Samvat year 1905, or A. D. 1848 : pp. 49, small 8vo. * To a writer or writers of this or similar name, IIindu literature 1 beholden for a number of volumes on the Vedanta and Mímünsi. See ny Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., pp. 70, 92, 139, and Appendix. Rághavánanda quotes Aniruddha, and was, consequently, posterior to hin. + Váhinís'a had a brother surnamcd Vidyámvása; and this is the title of the father of Rudra Bhattáchárya, the logician. person called Swapnes'- wara has contributed a series of annotations on the Aphorisms of Sundhya, entitled S'árdilya-s'ata-sútri-bháshya. * Of this work I have seen only a fragment of the beginning, going onl'er Váchaspati's notes on the first eight kúrikás. For several other works by Náráyana Tirtha Yati, sce my Catalogue, &r.. Vol. I, pp. 88, 107, and Appendix. Colebrooke says, “Ile was author likewise of a gloss on the Yoga-s'estru, as appears from lus own references to it." Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p 233. This staternent luas been suhstantially verified. There occurs, in his Sánkhya-chundrukii, il passare in which he speaks of his commentary on the Yoga-sútra. At p. 67 of this volume there are three couplets, introducıl as if origmal. Two of them are cited by Nárayana Tirtha Yati, who, therefore, perhaps came after Vijnána Bhikshu. --- ·39 son of Kás'ínátha, son of Balabhadra, son of Sarvávanda Mis'ra. This is little more than a jejune epitome of the Sánkhya-kaumudi, with a preface briefly explaining the Tattwa-samása, which it repeats. f. The Sánkhy a-tattwa-vibhákara.* III. The Sánkhya-chandriká, by Náráyana Tirtha Yati, author of the Tattwa-chandra, which has been spoken of above. IV. The Sánkhya-kaumudí,t by Ráma-krishna Bhattáchárya, who is said to borrow freely from the author of the work last named. The Sánkhya-sára-viveka, or Sánkhya-sára, I by Vijnána Bhikshu, consists of an expansion of the Sánkhya-kúriká, and an abridgement of the writer's own Sánkhya-pravachana-bháshya. * This work I know only from the 1st Vol, by Dr. Weber, of Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Koniglichen Bibliothek . Berlin : 1853, p. 638. Dr. Weber is in doubt whether its author's name be, or be not, Vans'ídhara. † Colebrooke's Miscell. Essays, Vol. I, p 234. This work I have not seen. Lassen-Gymnosophista ; Pref., p. ix.-makes it possible that it bears the second title of Súnkhya-sára. Prof. Wilson leaves this point undiscussed. Súnkhya-kúrika, Preface, p. vii. Colebrooke calls Ráma-krishna a learned, and not ancient, writer of Bengal.” He may be identifiable with Ráma-krishna Bhattáchárya Chakravartí, pupil of Raghunátha Bhattáchárya S'ıromanı. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I, p. 51. I In prose and verse; three chapters of the former, and sis of the latter. The metrical portion consists of kárikás; and contains about 270 couplets, principally in the anushtubh measure. Colebrooke calls this work a tise on the attainment of beatitude in this life.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 231. Its scope is, however, rather wider; comprehending salvation in general, as the meed of Sánkhya perfection. The Rev. William Ward adventured an English translation of this treatise, in his work on the Hindus; Vol. II, pp. 121–172: Svo. ed. of 1822. Immediately succeeding the invocation of the Sánkhya-sdra-viveka, is the following passage : सा रिकया शादा तत्त्वं विवेचितम् । साङ् सारविवे तो वि नेिन प्रपञ्च्यते ॥ « trea- ·40 The Sánkhya-tattwa-pradipa, by Kavirája Yatı or Bhikshu, pupil of Vaikuntha, is a brief exposition of the Sánkhya system, The Sánkhyártha-tattwa-pradipiká, by Bhatta Kes'ava, son of Sadánanda, son of Bhatta Kes'ava, is a treatise resembling the last.+ प्रायः कलिता साङख्यप्रहि या कारि गिणे । FTsatsa awa hutan İXA197: || Mr Ward's version of these couplets runs thus : “ The nature of spirit was examined by me briefly in the sánkhya-kárıká ; according to my ability I now publish the Sánkhya-sára-viveka, in which I have collected the essence of the Sankhya doctrines, which may all be found in the kúrkas.” The obvious rendering is, however, very different. “The Súnkhya-keáriká has discussed the nature of spirit but mcagrely : Vijnána, in the sánkhyasára-viveka, therefore dilates on it. On the other hand, the processes of the Sánkhya have, in the kurrkú collection, been, for the most part, enunciated : accordingly, they are here set forth sparingly- --so far only as they are there left unnoticed.' Mr. Ward's text was, clearly, the same as my own, with the exception of a first case, in the second verse, instead of a seventh. * Author of the Tattwa-dipa also. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., p. 109. + Colebrooke speaks of a Sánkhya work entitled Sangraha. I do not recall having met, in the course of my researches, with any reference to it. See Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., Ráya Mikuta, annotating the word upalabdh, in his gloss on the Amarakos'a, apparently quotes from a work called Sánichya-dars'ana. The Sánkhya-nuktávalí, by Vodhu, is, further, a Sankhya work possibly now, or once, in existence; if the bare word of a man who has declared to me that he once possessed and studied a copy of it, is to be received. But I gly suspect that he fabricated the title of the treatise, for the occasion. The Rev. Mr. Ward has published a list of Sankhya compositions, in his work on the Hindus; Vol. II., p. 121: 8vo. cd. of 1822. Tlus list is, however, one mass of errors, and errors almost too gross to deserve advertence. It assigns the Kapila-bhúshya to Vis'wes'warí, perhaps instead of Vijnanes'wara, as one sometimes hears Vijnána Bhikshu incorrectly called ; while it speaks of the Súnkhya-pravachana-bháshya as a distinct composition, and neglects to name its author. Václaspatı Misra’s Sankhyakaumudi is, in like manner, (luplicated. This for a sample. p. 234.

·41 or Of the history of our com entator, Vijaána Bhiksha, Vijnána Yati, little has been discovered. We are even unacquainted with the civil appellation that he bore previously to commencing cenobite; and the period at which he flourished, if not wholly referrible to conjecture, can be determined only by approximation. He must have preceded Náges'a Bhatta, the epitomist of one of his works, who may have been living in the year 1713.* Three of his disciplest are known by name: Blává Ganes'a Dikshita, I Prasáda Madhava Yogi,ş and The ignorance of our pandits very ordinarily confounds Fijnána Bhiksha with Vijnanes'wara, or Vijnána Yogi, anthor of the Witákshard, the celebrated commentary on the Yajnavalkya-smriti. But there is no evidence whatever that they are identical. Vijnanes'wara, who bore the title of Bhattáraka, was son of Padmanabha Bhatta, of the stock of Bharadwája. His preceptor was Vis' warúpa A'chárya, likewise a scholiast of Yájnavalkya. I shall not undertake to establish that this Vis'trerupa A'chárya yas the same person as Sures' wara A'chárga, secularly known as Vandana Mis'ra, a disciple of S'ankara A'cháry. See my Catalogue, &c., VOL I., pp. 89, 91, 131. * See a foot-note to p. 32, supra. In the prefatory verses of Vijnana's Pátanjala-bhashya-o&rtilca, according to one of the many USS. of it which I have examined, allusion is made to one Bhavadera, as an authority on the Yoga. Bhayalleva Mis'ra of Patna, author of the Patanjallyábkenadebhashya, a commentary on the Yoga-sútra, seems to be intended. But of kus age I know nothing. † M. Saint-Hilaire says: “Un maitre n'a généralement qu'on disciple ; un gorou n' a qu'un brahmatcher." Premier Hémorre sur le Sünkhya, p. 7. Again : “La saence, ainsi que j'ai eu occasion de le dire au début de ce mémoiro, se transmet, dans l'Inde, habituellement d'un seul maitre à un seul disciple” Ibid., p. 254. This is news in India Such unnatural cases no longer exist, if, indeed, they ever existed. I have seen & MS., without date, of the Tantra-chussmani or Dharmaimánsd-sangraha, an elementary Mímánsá disquisition, by Krishna Dera, son of Ráma A'chárya, which professes to be in the hand-writing of this person. I hardly incline to consider the age of this MS. to be a couple of centuries, at the most. Author of the s'drfra-kárikd-bhúskya or Kárikírtha-cinis'chaya, a dis. G ·Sinla llisra* Vöjnána is the author of at lount tivo uc?vi rat works, all of which are concerned with philosopliy. Their titles, in the order, mainly, in which they wero compruerit aru as follows: the Vijnanamrita or Brahma-sútra-riju-ryvikhyin, t the Skinkhya-pravachana-bhashya or Sankhya-bhixhyu.g the Patanjala-bháshya-pártita or Yoga-vrtika, the Winkhyu. súra-rireka or Sánkhya-sára, and the Yoga-sáru-sangruhu or Jadra-pradipa. I bare pot proposed, in this preface, to treat of the Minkhya system otherwise than with reference to the subordinato xaljenty of biography and bibliography. A number of obvioux (rdaninis llare, however, emerged for deviating from thoso rigid laule let, for thus trespassing beyond may limits, no apology muy, ļx*r hap, be expected ; and bone, certainly, will bo requisite for a fer sentences in defence of my proper charge, Vijnana Bhikslu. Hitation on the following enigmatical couplot, wbich ite oxpounder ririnis to derio from the Itakdbarata : रणबारे विनिचित्य पाँचतुर्मिषमीकर। पबला पिदिमा परिना शुणे भव। Thu dissertation u in four sections, one being allotted to each picentre of the distich Dirza Subs Mos'ra bus written a commentary, by name s'drira-kvirikribkusya-ruirtita, on the work mentionad in the last note. IIo sty lex lima frilm-student of Prasáda Midhapa Yogh, ander Vajnána Bhikshu : anu lie eukennzes Prasura Usthava as the most eminent of their master's (lisciples. + Each of the works, from the last upwurde, citon all that, ith Intere" diqqavil, precuda it. But the Sinkhya-bhdshya and the Yoga-odrlika qurile rh uther. The author appeara, accordingly, to bave been engngrid with th at the same time; unless ha, or some one elus, interpolated one or ther rither. commentary on Búdaráyapa's sphoriazn of the Verlinta; containing s'&us. En.hraeiug Vl. 9400 imminentury on the Patanjala-bhishgt af Vylna'I. 6300. A succinct exposition of tho Yoga philosophy: oh 830 circiter.

·48 In India, at least, Vijnána Bhikshu's ability as an expositor of the Sankhya philosophy stands unimpeached. It has, however, at last been disallowed by so considerable a scholar as M. Saint-Hilaire. But it will be easy to evince, after the ensuing extract, whether our scholiast's judgement, particularly as regards the specific point on which the European philosopher arraigns it, be as immature as has been represented. M. Saint-Hilaire translates and descants on the twenty-fifth of rs' wara Krishna's memorial stanzas, as follows: « VINGT-OINQUIB MB SLOKA DE LA XABIKA. ". L'ensemble des onze principes doués de bonté émane du moi quani il est modifié également par la bonté. Du moi considéré comme élément primitif viennent les élémenta grossiers; il est alors obscur; et ectte loubleéınanation u'a lieu que par l'influence de l'activité.' “ Lorsque dans le moi la bonté l'emporte sur l'obscurité et sur la méchanceté ou pansion, le moi est essentiellement par; et, dans le langage ilus anciens maitres, le moi, à cet état, est appelé modifié. Sa véritable naturi, c'est d'être affecté par la bonté ; et quand il est ainsi affecté, la mulificativa qu'il reçoit est celle qu'il doit véritablement recevoir ; ce n'est pas eu quelque sorte une modification pour lui, puisque son essence c'est d'être brille C'est du moi dans cette disposition que sortent les onze principes, dunen alors comme lui de bonté. On se rappelle qae les onze principes sont les cinq organes de perception, les cinq organes d'action, et le marius, ou le cour, placé au onzième rang. Quand au contraire le qui est affecte wb scurité, on ne l'appelle plus Veikrita, le modifié ; mais on l'appellu Bhui. tadi, l'élément primitif, l'obscur; et c'est de lui que surteat les ring eine menta groaniers, les Bhoutani. Blais pour produire l'une ou l'autre de ces créations, soit les onze organes doués de bouté, soit les cing elé wèuts Tsiers, le moi a besoin de l'intervention de l'actirité. Par lui-ine:ue le mud * The three guas are, it may be, still an unread riiddle; and I decide Ilie attempt of improving on the interpretations of them that bare Ziet u vele tured by my predecessor, Prof. Wilson formarly wrote of them as follows: * The Ilindu "raterna erranges all the attributes of spirit in action, under three bends or ylistie* , the sattwa, rajas, and tamce. The first comprises tbe presenet uf all out, and absence of all evil; the lant, the presence of all eril, al tite als of all good; and the middle one is a mixed quality, in which the faci G 2 ·43 In India, at least, Vijnána Bhikshu's ability is an expositor of the Sánkhya philosophy stands unimpeached. It has, howevor, at last been disallowed by so considerable a scholar as M. Saint-Hilaire. But it will be easy to evince, after the ensuing extract, whether our scholiast's judgement, particularly as regards the specific point on which the European philosopher arraigns it, bo as immature as Las been represented. M, Saint-JIilaire translates and descants on the twenty-fifth of Is' wara Krishna's memorial stanzas, as follows : VINGT-CINQUIB'M BLOKA DE LA FABIKA. "L'ensemble des onze principou donés de bonté émane du moi quand il est modifié également par la bonté. Du moi considéré comme élémeur primitaf viennent les élémenta gromen; il est alort obscur ; et cctte donble émanation n'a bien que par l'influence de l'activité.' " Lonque dans le moi la bonté l'emporte sur l'obucurité et sur la méchana cotó ou pansion, le moi cat essentiellement pur ; et, dans le langage des anciens maitre, le moi, à cet état, est appeló modifié. Sa véritable nature', c'est d'être affecté par la bonté, et quand il est ainn affecté, la modification qu'il reçoit est celle qu'il fait réritablement recevoir ; ce n'est pas en qelque norte une modification pour lm, puisque son essence c'est d'etre bon. C'est du moi dans cette dzaposition que sortent les onze principes, doués alon comme lou de bonté. On se rappelle que les onze principes sont le cing organes de perception, les cinq organes d'action, et le mane, ou le coeur, placé au onzème rang. Quand en contrare le moi est affecte d'ubsourité, on ne l'appelle ploe Vakrta, la modifié; mais on l'appelle Bhoùtidi, l'element primitif, l'obscur; et d'ent de lui que sortent les cinq élementa gromien, la Bhouthal Alans pour produire l'une ou l'entre de ces créations, soit les onze organes dones de bonti, voit les ang elements grote alers, la mol a besoin de l'intervention de l'activité. Par lui-même le mwi The three gupas are, it may be, atill an unnad niille; and I declme the attempt of improving on the interpretations of them that have been reaturel by my predecessors. Prof. Wilson formerly wrote of them ou follows. "The Hulu systein erranges all the attributes of spirit in action, under three heal or qualities; the sattwa, rajas, and tamas. The first compries the presence of all womand, and absence of all evil, the last, the presence of all erl, and the abiv of all goods and the middle one is a mued quality, w which the epurac IOL Q 2 ·44 # inerte: danu non Etat de prareté, & n'ugit pus; il frat prour agir qu'il Appelle d non ade un autre moi, qui est le moi actif; ct, par l'wiuni trener dens mor, s trouvent products et les onze organes et les cenu klouzita praalers. " Le moi a donc quatre états necessifs, et oranu quatre pour les lesquelles al llarse pour arriver à la création. D'aborel il est inrrhea ile produit ren; pau 1 derzent actaf sous l'influczce de la passionat * #**#fit i! produt low onze organoa, et pour les produro il cut done de boat, antik, doué dlobucarité, il produt las cinq éléments grousiaru. * Cette trolution du woi peut paraître aussi bizarro quo fallur; Main la pensée, quelle qu'en soit d'alleurs les valeur, est fort claire ; et le "4538 mentateur Gaoodepade n'hésite pas à l'expliquer comme ou Ticut te fs fuimet I entend le doka de la Kariks on ce nens que c'est le moi qui in tinju. mance aux onge organes d'une part, et d'autre part aus ein liukas 377* nen. Mau Vidjatna Bhikshou, le commentatear dos Sodtru, cuttuu asub of the affections and pauniona za strongest, and gives acciprional poreclomi Dance to good and 1" Quantorly Oriental Maganue for Dlareka hanya p. 31. In the next page be adds : "Sridhare au Nilabiliu, it 11 pf", wterpret sativa by dharya, firmncns, fortitudo : but they iutrust the water thug, in fact, with the sattua quality, or the Mons Ralula of the upright man who is unmoved by ignorance and passion. It appceN to the wishe as the Temperante o Tranquillitas of the Stones, whilst the sujN* HNIEME he expressed by Perturbatio, and tamar by Intemperauti." Mr. J. Ellis unbesitabingly renders the names of the qualities toy " fairy unim patroned rotao," "pamnon, and " Lepparity inclining te volt" and ber believes the spocryphal Sanchoniathon to have had some inkling ut dlar * eenliber, and to have bangled thema in hu mystical theogony. Nosciu of the Raritya. of Bodháyunila in the Quarterly Oriental Mayenne for Keptember, 1826; pp. 8, 16, and 16. V. Saint-Salaze uy: " Je crois qu'en réunmé atto attribution des trois qualité à la nature cashe une idée des plus simples : elle signitu uniyun. woent que les choses dans leur rapporto ATEO DONG, est à l'orque «ut» BIMIT ME rapporte dans ce wystéme d'idéalucao, 10 perwent otare qno de tria morten, bunges, maUFAISON, ou indittérentan. J'ai Younement cherche un autre ***14 aux théories da Sankbra s ja no pais leur trouver que celui-l Diet# Iz subrent peuvages des commentateurt, des poemes et don pourtnas an il est question des trois qualiter, eller ne presentent tonjour nous vet spect. Premarr Himoire sur le Sankhya, p. 317.

·utron ont la pensée de Kapila. Je viens de dire que le Bordt du ditre est ici complotomant identique, sauf un neatre en place d'un maken, vury do la Karika. Aina la deux commentateurs ont le mime teste, et lu uxéruuco d'interprétation de repose pas sur me différence de mouth. 1)r Vidljnana comprend qu'il n'agit ia, non pas de l'ensemble des onze zwweignet sortant du moi, maar da onzième principe, d'anti-dire da wanau, du cuar, qui, dans toutes les classifications, figure régahèrement, comme un l'a vir xu ouzido rang, parce qu'il est tout la fois organe de perception et l'action. I faudrait donc faire ia um changement connulérable, et mirtstrer le manAI AXX Onze organen. Je dois due que la gammar Hay oppiaad en rien, et que le texte, soit avec le neutre de Kapito, Mrt alt for masculin d'Levera Kruhns, ac préte également buen & l'on et is l'autre ***, " Si l'on adopta l'explication de Vfujudny, il faudrat tradure 16 - cinquième ploka de la façon suivante : “Lo onzièmo principe doué de bonté émane da moi qnaulkref modifié egalement par la bonté; da onneme principe, costilei sobicado élément primitif, rennent les Alémenta groszers. Ce omneme juriben cs obacur; et tour deus, o principe et le moi, n'agesent que sous l'utik wat do l'activité * Mais on peut remarquer que cette explication est en coatrakctive for mello avec les alokas quz précédent : d'abord avec le slula Trut-u uvix' qui fait sortir directement du mou les seize muacpes, et qu: foi witaria particulier les élémenta grosier dan éléments subtile; et en-u.te, die l. sloka vingt-quatrième, que reproduit la même doctrine. I fant copy cotto doottine que nous retroRTODO dona la Kariki vient de Kapiu-Devoll, comme le prouve lo softra que nous avons até. Vous devons dula LUIANCA fier à l'explication de Gaondapada plutôt qu'à celle de Thuljuka. Duis aystème mkhya bien interprété, les cinq éléments grusler. Butut iis cinq elémenta xabtals ; et les ang elémenta mbtils arte lua onze (1921 vionnont du moi. Ce n'est pas lo meno, le coeur, qui proluut ko tl. wuts grossiers, comme lo crot Vidjnana Bhikshou; et ce qu dost nods APULT encore davantage dans son erreur, c'est que, dans le soutra immeutulat prócédent, Kapila dit exprenément, lecture dennémo, soutra • L'effet du moi, c'est l'ensemble des onze organes et des aug klemata grossiers.' Quelque délient qu'il soit de se prononcer dans des questwas ik ee goure, nous croyons pouvoir affirmar que Vidjuảna Bazkuhuu nimmt trompo, et qu'il n'y a point å tenir compte de son opinion," Premer - moire mor le Sankhya, pp. 99-102. M. Saint-Hilaire's rendering of the memorial couplct calls, first of all, for attention. 1 ·47 In the preceding extract we read that it is of the esconce of egotism to be good. Yet it is no more so than it is of its es. produced from egotum only by the intermediate egency of the elementary particles The mutake which Professor Wilson falle unto, after his attempt to correct Colebrooke, can early enough be accounted for. Gandapáda says: भूतानामादिभूत। तनाव हमोतःप सामस रति । Thu the Professor translates thug : * The first element of the elementa u darkness; therefore it u usually called the dark." But the word here rendered by " first element" would, as mangolino, mean 'firat bong,' f at were a substantive; • first element requiring, not ádábhutah, but ddibhutan. Being, however, adjective, it refers to bhútáds, the second factor of which it justifies etymologically. This reference should have been evident from the gender of uktak, 8a, and temast; and also from that of bakulas, which, with its present ending, and, moreover, as it stands in the sentence, could never be en advab. It not propounded that the elemente orginate from their like, from an element; and, while nothing is predicated of darknen, darkmess is predicated as characterizing one of the varieties of egotiem. The passage ated above will, therefore, admit of no other translation than much as this: It, origin of the elemente, za originary, D., of the elementa: st is also marcharged with darkness; and hence u called dark.' To bear out Professor Wilson's English, the Sansknt should have stood thus: Portrait नमः। नेम व समुहं तत् नामसमिति । the passage from Gaudapada, I have supplied it with panctuation, and the only punctuation that it will abide. In the Pishpu-purána, at I, 12, 53, the term bhatádo generative of the alomonta,' epithetically employed in place of dark egotum,' is again rondered, by Profewor Wilson, "fint element." See bus Translation, p. 99, line 19. Professor Wilson, building on bus overaght, indulges in the following comment, which may now be cancelled : There is a remarkable expror sion in the Bhdshya, which presenta a notion familiar to all ancient cormogonies. Gaudapáda saya, the first of the elementu was darknes.' It is the first of the elementa,' not the irst of thing; for it wou preceded by unevolved nature, and intellect, and it is itself a modified form of individuality. It therefore harmonizes perfectly well with the prevailing ideas in the ancient world, of the state of thingt anterior to elementary or viable creation, when chaos was, and night,' and when In giving ·48 sence to be dark, or to be active. To the end that egotism may acquire the distinction of pure, it is not necessary that it should Nullus adhuc mundo praebebat lumina Titan, Nec nova crescendo reparabat cornua Phoebe. In the influence of the quality of foulness, or passion,--for the word rajas has both senses,-may be suspected an affinity to the doctrine of an active principle, the moving mind, the eros, that set inert matter into motion, and produced created things.” Súnkhya-kárikd, p. 94. Lassen, who was the first to translate the whole of Is'wara Krishna's treatise, had a right understanding of bhútádi. “ Caterva undenum essentialis proficiscitur e sui sensu essentialı ; rudimentalis ex (sui sensu) elementorum generatore; haec caliginosa est. Ex impetuoso (sui sensu) utralıbet oritur creatio." Twenty-fifth kúriká, in Gymnosophista, p 58. C. J. H. Windischmann prudently follows Lassen; putting " Anfang der Elemente" for bhútádı. Die Philosophie im Fortgang der Weltgeschichte, p. 1816. A revised version of the káriká in question is here submitted : « The class of eleven, consisting of purity, proceeds from egotism technically called modified. From egotism, as the source of the elements, the rudimental particles originate; and this form of egotism is imbued with darkness. But it is only from egotism when affected by activity that the one and the other, the class of eleven and the elementury particles, take their rese It may be observed that, while Professor Wilson, at p. 94 of the Sánkhya-kúriká, considers egotism, in one of its kinds, as “ the first of the elements," at p. 121 he places, by the side of the tan-mátras subtile elements, ' --which emanate from egotism, and give birth to the gross elements, -as speciously comparable, the storycia Otolyelwy of Empedocles. For the seeming parallel to these elemental ultimates, the Professor ought, in consistency, to have gone back to dark egotism. But it has previously been shown that the Sánkhya does not recognise as elementary anything antecedent to the particles so designated. The Professor's remarks, incidentally bearing on the functions of bhútedi, at p. 164 of the Sánkhya-kúrikí, are unsubstantiated. The text on which these mistaken observations are founded, is as follows: Tarafa: Fit लिङ्गसौ भावसा भूतसी दैवमानुषतर्य ना इत्येष प्रधान तः षोडश सगैः । “ Thus, non-elemental creation, rudimental creation, conditional and clemental creation, in beings of divine, mortal, brutal, and (immovable) origin, are the sixteen sorts of creation effected by nature.” Such is Professor ·49 consist wholly of purity; the mere preponderance of this qua- 2 Wilson's translation ; instead of which we should certainly read: The non-elemental creation,-i. e., the rudimental creation and the conditional creation-and the elemental creation, or the aggregate of beings of divine, mortal, and brutal, origin, are the sixteen sorts of creation proceeding mediately from nature.' My MS. wants the word wat elemental creation ;' but its insertion, as an equivalent of the Atfarah: psi: of the 53d káriká, is quite immaterial. Moreover, I have corrected a grammatical inadvertence. The elemental creation has fourteen divisions; and the two branches of the non-elemental count, each, as unity. The sum of sixteen is thus completed. There is, then, no such respective reference, in the above passage, as may have led the Professor to supply the word 'immovable, and which induced him to make the following comment : “Apparently, each of the four classes of beings proceeds from four modifications of nature, or, from the invisible principles, from the subtile rudiments, from the conditions or dispositions of intellect, and from the gross elements." The evolution of the Sánkhya principles as recited in the Vishnu-purána, is strangely misrepresented by the translator. A single sample will suffice. भूतादिस्तु विकुर्वाणः शब्द तन्मात्रिकं ततः ॥ ससर्ज शब्दतन्मात्रादाकाशं शब्दलक्षणम् । भब्द त्रिं त ऽऽकाशं भूतादिः स समारोत् ॥ I., 2, 37-8. * Elementary Egotism then becoming productive, as the rudiment of sound, produced from it Ether, of which sound is the characteristic, investing it with its rudiment of sound” Translation, p. 16. The correct rendering is, however : "The element-engendering egotism, being modified, then produced the rudiment of sound; and, from the rudiment of sound, the ether, whose characteristic is sound: and this element. engendering egotism, similarly to agents in processes before mentioned, investcd the ether, which consists of sound.' Alinost the entire page from which the passage above anımallverted on is taken, is disfigured by the style of nuisapprehension just pointed out. In one place, in fact, in order to force the construction desired, the nominative singular váyi-euphonically required for váyuh-is made accusative. Saintly liberties vastly more licentious than this, are often taken, in the Puránas, but there is, in this instance, no temptation whatever to do violence to Pánmı.

·50 12 lity being held sufficient for the purpose. * Further, the term manas is said to mean 'heart.' At p. 30, it is called “l'esprit vital.” At p. 106, a choice is allowed out of " le cœur," " l'esprit," and, "pour prendre une expression plus juste et assez souvent employée dans notre langage philosophique, le sensorium commune.”+ The manas is defined, by Sánkhya authorities, to be one of the soul's three internal organs, without which there is no experience of joy or grief; in the same way as, for instance, but for the eye, one of the soul's external organs, sight is impossible. In order to adjust the twenty-fifth káriká after Vijnána's conception of manas, M. Saint-Hilaire correctly premises that this word must be substituted, in the couplet, for the cleven organs. But, professing to effect this substitution, while he once puts manas for the eleven organs, he puts it three times for egotism. He also puts egotism for subtile elements, or, rather, gross elements; for he foists this blunder of his own, as well as his borrowed primitive element, on the injured commentator. Again, purposing to censure Vijnána, he remarks rightly, at first, that, ' in the Sankhya system, accurately expounded, the five gross elements issue from the five subtile elements; and the five subtile elements, and the eleven organs, from egotism. Yet, in CC sen- * Indeed, in the twenty-fifth kárıká itself we have the word vikrita 'modified' as a synonyme of sáttwrka 'pure.' Elsewhere, vaikúrika 'modificational' occurs as its substitutes. † Professor Wilson had already explained manas to be an internal sense, a sensorium." Súnkhya-káriká, p. 100. Colebrooke calls it a sitive, material organ," and likens it to the Bunds of Pythagoras. Miscell Essays, Vol. I., p. 418. The word manas has often been compared to the Greek uévos ; but, whether as used in the Sánkhya system, or elsewhere, it bears very little similarity to this term, which“ seems most commonly to answer to the Latin word impetus, and implies rather a physical, than mental, energy. Homer places it, at different times, in the knees, the abuos, the otheos, and the ophy." Mitchell's Wasps of Aristophanes, p. 103.

·51 translating and annotating the twenty-fifth káriká, we have seen that it is the gross elements which he derives immediately from cgotism. But Vijnána has clearly enough set forth his view of the twenty-fifth kariká, as M. Saint-Hilaire would have seen, kad he read, even with the aid of Professor Wilson, the scholiast's interpretation of the eighteenth Aphorism of the second Book.* After alleging manas to mean the eleventh organ, Vijuana explains 'both to refer to the intellectual organs and the organs of action. The káriká will, then, run thus: The eleventh organ, consisting of purity, originates from modified egotism. From egotism, as the source of the elements, proceed the rudimental particles; and this variety of egotism is imbued with darkness. From egotism affected by activity, arise both the intellectual organs and the organs of action.' Vijnána is, therefore, peculiar, as compared with some others, iu deducing, from pure egotism, but a single product, mind, instead of eleven, viz., mind and the ten organs of intellection and action: the latter being referred, by him, to the active species of egotism ; which is held, on the adverse interpretation, to be, independently, inoperative, but yet an indispensable condition of energy on the part of the other two modifications of the self-conscious principle. To defend, textually, his exegesis of the latter part of the twenty-fifth káriká, Vijnana must be supposcd to contemplate the twenty-sixth káriká ; inasmuch as the organs of understanding and action are there mentioned for the first time in the treatise : and this anticipation is clearly impracticablc, save by the dislocation of all syntax. Nevertheless, the import which Vijvána contends for, is far from being a peculiarity * Sánkhya-kúriká, p. 94. Professor Wilson here, too, however, requires to be set right. Forgetting the order in which he has just enumerated the modifications of egotism, he writes "the other ten, from the second kind; and the elements, from the third." The words 'second' and third' must be transposed. H 2 ·52 personal to himself only. Both the sets of Aphorisms attributed to Kapila are silent on the topic under discussion; and so is the Mahábhárata. Arguing, however, from the Hindu point of view,--such as it is,-our commentator is supported by the divine testimony of the Puráņas, against the mere human authority of I's'wara Krishna and his successors.* At all events, the ex- T * The productiveness of active egotism is the doctrine of the Puránas. The Mahábharata, after XII., 11395, where it would be expected to propound either this view, or else one that would preclude it, is suggestively mute. Can it be that this tenet is a developement dating subsequently to I's'wara Krishna's time ; having been, since then, grafted on the Puráņas ? I quote, below, from these works. भूततन्मात्रसोऽयमहङ्कारात् तु तामसात् । ते सान्यन्द्रियाण्या वा वैकारिका दश ॥ एकादशं मनचाऽत्र देवा वैकारिकाः स्मृताः । Vishnu-purana, I., 1, 46-7. “This is the elemental creation, proceeding from the principle of egotism affected by the property of darkness. The organs of sense are said to be the passionate products of the same principle, affected by foulness; and the ten divinities proceed from egotism affected by the principle of goodness; as does mind, which is the eleventh.” Prof. Wilson's Translation, pp. 17, 18 In a foot-note to p. 16, Prof. Wilson repeats Gaudapáda's account of the three sorts of egotism, but without directing attention to its contradiction of his text. For a passage to the same effect with the verses given above, see the Bhagavata purúna, III., 5, 29 seqq.: also III, 26, 27 seqq. It is the first of these two passages that is cited, by Vijnána, at p. 118. Vírarághava, in his commentary, the Bhagavata-chandriki, wrests the word taijasát, in the fourth verse, into congruity with the dogmas of I's'wara Krishna and his school, by explaining it to denote' with the aid of passional egotism.' Add : वैकारिकादहङ्कारात् सगी वैकारिकोऽभवत् । ते सानोन्द्रियाणि स्युर्दैवा वैकारिका दश ।। एकादशं मनस्तत्र खगुणेनेोभया कम् । भूतत पत्रसगाऽयं भूतादेरभवन् प्र ः ॥ Kúrma-puránc, prior section, 4th chapter.

·53 pression of amazement ventured by M. Saint-Hilaire, is altogether gratuitous; and it would have been well had he foregone the temerity of impeaching, with licadlong disparagement, the adjudication, by so acute and learned a writer as Vijnána, of a nice philosophical punctuality. Vajnána, so far from the preposterous solecism of deducing any of the elements from mind, expands the seventeenth Aphorism of the second Book in these words : The eleven organs, and the five subtile elements, i, e., sound, &c., are the products of egotism.'* Gross from subtile Pure cgotism, here, again, is made to generate the ten superintending deities, who, according to the Sanklya system as ordinarily enunciated, except in the Puránas, must form part of the worldl of animation, which emanates from the subtile elements. The names of these deities occur in the Bhagavata-purúna, II., 5, 30. M. Burnouf, in his translation of this work, Vol. I., p. 122, renders the appellation of one of them, Dis', by “les points cardinaux." The directions are variously computed, by the Hindus, at four, eight, and ten. Professor Wilson arbitrarily expresses Dis' by “space." Vishnu-puráva, p. 17, 28th foot-note. An cleventh dlcity is recognised by some of the Purúņas---the moon, whose presidency is over mind. In the verses quoted above, from the Kúrma-purána, mind is strangely said to partake of the two qualities of activity and purity. The Sarva-dars'ana-sangraha considers thic ten organs and mind to be cffluences from pure egotism, and silently ignores any hypothesis of their originating otherwise. It is a curious circumstance that this work nowliere mentions the Sánklıya Aphorisms ; its authority on hylotheistic matters, wherever a text is to be cited, being the Kúriks of l’s'wara Krislina. An examination of S'ankara Achárya's Sarva-siddhánla-sangraha, which I have not been able to procure, would, very probably, throw light on the Sánkhya as received in the eighth century. The nuth chapter of this treatise is occupied with the doctrine of Kapila. See Zeitschrift der Deutschen morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, Vol. I., 200. * Sce, at p. 45, supra, M. Saint-IIilaire's incorrect translation of tlie passage which I render tlius. Thc essayist's heedlessness is, here, unaccountable.

·54 follows of necessity.* As to the rest, his predilections, alike in the present instance and elsewhere, are for the doctrines of the original Sentences, as altered and amplified by Pauráņika innovation. The Sánkhya system assumes, in practice, the form of the adoration of nature, † or, rather, of a sublimated ideal essence of in * In the Sánkhya Aphorisms, the coordinate emanation, from the subtile elements, of the gross elements, is expressly indicated as early as I., 61,- which M. Saint-Hilaire passes by, as has previously been shown :-and Vijnána, in his notes, is nowise eccentric in his paraphrase of this text. Múla-prakriti, the primordial agent, whose analogues, in the several Hindu schools of philosophy, are too notorious to call for repetition. The late Rev. Dr. W. H. Mill has likened it to the έννοια of Gnosticism, which, as in the Sankhya, võus, or intellect, buddhi,-otherwise called mahat, ,—is the first-born offspring; and then all separate individual essences." Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1835, p. 386. Such was the dream of Valentine, as we learn from Ireneus : Λέγουσι γάρ τινα είναι εν αοράτους και ακατονομάστoις υψώμασι τέλειον Αιώνα προόντα: τούτον δε και * * * * * Προπάτορα και Βυθον καλούσιν. * * * * * Υπάρχοντα δ' αυτόν αχώρητον και αόρατον, αίδιόν τε και αγέννητον εν ησυχία και ήρεμία πολλή γεγονέναι εν απείροις αίωσι χρόνων. Συνυπάρχειν δ' αυτό και "Έννοιαν, ήν δή και Χάριν και Σιγήν ονομάζουσι. Και εννοηθήναι ποτε αφ' εαυτού προβαλέσθαι τον Βυθόν τούτον άρχήν των πάντων, και καθάπερ σπέρμα την προβολήν ταύτην την προβαλέσθαι ενενοήθη) και καταθέσθαι, ως έν μήτρα, τη συνυπαρχούση εαυτώ Σιγή. Ταύτην δε υποδεξαμένην το σπέρμα τούτο και εγκυμονα γενομένην αποκυήσαι Νούν όμοιόν τε και ισον το προβαλόντι και μόνον χωρούνται το μέγεθος του Πατρός. Τον δε Νούν τούτον και Μονογενή καλούσι, Πατέρα και 'Aρχήν των πάντων. Συμπροβεβλήσθαι δε αυτώ Αλήθειαν. Και είναι ταύτην πρώτης και αρχέγονον Πυθαγορικής Τετρακτύν, ήν και ρίζαν των πάντων καλούσιν. "Έστι γαρ Βυθός και Σιγή, έπειτα Νους και Αλήθεια. Irenæi Opera, ed. Stieren : Lipsiae, 1853: Tom I., pp. 10 seqq. Cyril, of Jerusalem, gives Valentine's genealogy of the Aeons very differently: “Ο Βυθός εγέννησε Σιγήν, και από της Σιγής έτεκνοποίει Λόγον, κ. τ. λ. Catech. VI. In the Refutation of all IIeresies, by Hippolytus, Irenæus's disciple, it is shown, however, that Simon, the Samaritan sorcerer, a precursor ·55 the material world, for which the European languages, nowise to their discredit, want a name. That this scheme of speculation nomenof Valentine, had quite a different cosmogony,_and not in clature only : Δύο εισι παραφυάδες των όλων αιώνων, μήτε άρχήν μήτε πέρας έχουσαι, από μιάς ρίζης, ήτις έστι δύναμις, Σιγή, αόρατος, ακατάληπτος, ών η μία φαίνεται άνωθεν, ήτις εστί μεγάλη δύναμις, Νούς των όλων, διέπων τα πάντα, άρσης, Η δε ετέρα, κάτωθεν, Έπίνοια μεγάλη, θήλεια, γεννώσα τα πάντα. Simon's 'Απόφασις Μεγάλη. Vide Origenis [lege Ilippolytı] Philosophumena, sive Omnium Hæresium Refutatio, ed. Emmanuel Miller; p. 173. Though Gregory of Nazianzus-supported by his commentators, Elias of Crete and Nicetas Serron-declares that Simon talkoi of both Bubòs and Exyn, yet the evidence of what are, presumably, thic sorcerer's own words, is opposed to this assertion. Theodoret describes Simon's nonsense similarly, as far as regards this pair of powers; only, like Irenæus, he puts "Evvola for Scyń. And yet he brings in "Evvoca a second time, as springing, with Dwv, from Nous and 'Errivola. For this second "Evvow we must read "Ovoua. Simon's 'Etrívola thus appears to become, with Valentine, 'Evvola ; only the latter is, now, mother of Noüs, instead of mate. "Evvoca has, here, however, anotlıer name, Scyn; which is, with Simon, the appellation of the source of’Emivoca. But Simon's Elyn-otherwise called Nøp?-has no obvious partner, to serve as prototype to the paramour Bubós. In other words, Simon starts with a monad, while Valentine sets out with a duad. Valentine's theory, in producing the world, at the outset, by generation, is, therefore, in one respect, nearer the Sánkhya than is that of Simon; who, to every appearance, maintains a twofold effluence, prior to any process of procreation. The Sánklıya first begets, and then introduces evolution. For Simon Magus's Meydan dúvauls, see the Acts of the Apostles, VIII., 10. In the hoinilies ascribed to Clement of Rome, the expression “great power of God," as applied, by Simon, to himself, receives the following turn : Σίμων, όριστερά του Θεού δύναμις ών, και των τον Θεόν ουκ ειδότων επι κακοποιία την εξουσίαν έχων. Clementis Romani quae feruntur Homiliae Viginti, ed. Dressel : Gottingae, 1853: p. 174. Simon's dúvajcs cannot but remind the Sanskrit scholar of the Hindu s'akti. But the former term was applied to either sex, whereas the other is restuicted to females. Dr. Mill, in connection with the remark lately cited, puts forward a statement touching one of the fundamentals of Hinduism, which, as coming 7 ·57 A'chárya's controversial adventures,-a romance which unquestioning credulity lias affiliated on Ananda Giri,--the great Vedántic doctor is represented as having been confronted, in the course of his rambles, by only a single Sánkhya, one Lakshmaņa. Though the heretic would, of course, eventually succumb, it yet cost his doughty opponent, in this instance, but few words to boast a new pervert.* In preparing the present publication for the press, I employed, for the body of the work, three manuscripts, which agreed among themselves to such a degree as to occasion little doubt or difto * Nor was Sankara here constrained, in order to enforce Ins creed, to appeal to the argument of his disciples' staves and sandals : a mode of propagandism to which, on the word of his biographer, he was, at all times, suficiently prone to have recourse. The author of the Sankara-dig-vijaya, unscrupulous fabler as he was, has yet described the Sankhya theory with sufficient accuracy. It is difficult say whether he is equally exact in his account of the ascendancy which it had acquired, in his day, among its professors. Sankara’s argumentation with Lakshmana can readily be imagined ; but Lakshmana's confession of faith, being brief, shall be adduced. It purports to be borrowed, and is as follows: गुणसाम्यं प्रधानं हि महत्तत्त्वादिकारणम् । अव्यक्तं व्य भावं च गत्येकं परात् परम् ॥ इति ॥ तदुपासनमात्रेण मुक्तिः सन्निहिता सणाम् । #famiffatrated OTTHAĦĦ Il Thai The chief onemor primeval nature—is the equilibrium of the three qualities; the souice of the great principle, or intelligence, and of the rest of the derivative material principles ; undiscernible, as cause; also discernible, 212 its products ; singular in the woili, superior to what-viz, intelligence-is itself superior, in a descending series. Through the mere worslup thereof do men attain salvation, and Kapıla and other teachers cngaged in the most exalted contemplation The latter couplet, if not a forgery, is scarcely in accord with M, Sainl- Hilaire's assertion : “ Le Bouddhisme cst levenu une religion; ct c'est un hut que n'a jamais poursuivi l'école du Sâukhya." Premier Mémoire sur le Sanklıya, p. 1. 6 < > ·58 ficulty. None of them had a date; and they all wore a modern appearance. For correctness they were respectable. As the last pages of the sixth Book were passing through the printer's hands, two other manuscripts were obtained. One was undated; the other was transcribed in the Samavat year 1711, or A. D. 1654. They discovered few blemishes; but, while presenting, throughout, a great similarity to one another, they differed, in many respects, from my earlier materials. Full particulars of these discrepancies will be found in the Appendix. This, for the benefit of Hindu students, I have given in Sanskrit; but in a style so simple that no European who has passed his novitiate in the classical language of India, will have reason to complain that it was not written in English. In this Appendix I have, also, frequently referred to Aniruddha's and Mahadeva's readings of the aphorisms. Of these sentences, unaccompanied by commentary, I had two excellent manuscripts. To ascertain the sentences the more completely, I likewise collated three very accurate copies of Náges'a Bhatta's abstract of my author's text. Náges'a cites the aphorisms at length.* For the tedious array of emendations which deform the con- * The first edition of the Súnkhya-pravachana-bháshya bears the imprint of Serampore, 1821: 8vo. pp. 220. This seems to be the publication announced as having been projected by “Mr. Carey and his assistants," under the auspices of the Council of Fort William, and the Asiatic Society of Bengal. See Roebuck's Annals of the College of Fort William, p. 157. The faults of that impression need not now be made the subject of minute recital A characteristic sample of them may be seen in the foot-note at the bottom of pp. 21-24 supra. The editors of the volume had the advantage of a manuscript, or manuscripts, much superior to the use they made of their appliances Several of the longer additional passages which I derived from my codices last procured, and which will be found in the Appendix, occur in the Serampore edition also In 1852, Dr. Ballantyne published the first fasciculus of “The Aphorisms of the Sankhya Philosophy of Kapila, with Illustrative Extracts from the Commentaries." It was followed, in 1854, by a second fasciculus, completing the fourth Book.

·59 clusion of the volume, I plead my distance from the press, and the brittleness of Anglo-Indian type- etal.* A Bangálí translation of the Sánkhya-pravachana-bhúshya, entitled Sánkhya-bháshá-sangraha, was undertaken by Rámajaya Tarkálankára Bhattácharya, son of Mrityunjaya. So, at least, the work itself sets forth: but the Friend of India Magazine for 1823, No. VIII., p. 567, makes them to be joint translators; and adds that they were, the last-named in succession to the other, “chief pandits in the Supreme Court.” Mrityunjaya, surnamed Vidyalankára, had previously been head pandit in the College of Fort William. This version conforms very closely to the Serampore edition of the original, from which, while still unpublished, it appears to have been prepared. How much of this translation was executed, or how much of it was printed, I am unable to say. All that I have seen of it is a fragment of 168 octavo pages, breaking off, abruptly, in the midst of the commentary on the eighty-nınth Aphorism of the first Book_according to my numbering. The volume was published at Serampore, in 1818. It opens with a short preface in Sanskrit; and it gives the sútras in the original language, and in large characters. At Benares I have seen, in manuscript, a prose translation, in the provincial dialect, of the Senkhya-sutra and of Vijnána’s exposition in alistract. The author was Ahıtágni Rakshapála Dúbe; who also showed me IIındí versions, male by himself, on a like model, of the Yoga, Nyáya, Vais'eshuika, Veđánta, and Mímánsá, Aphorisms, and of S'ándılya's Sentences on Devotion. Each of these translations was accompanied, like the Sánkhyasútra, by a Hindi gloss, abridged from the Sanskrit. * A more thorough scarch for defects than that which resulted in the list of crrata at the end of the volume, has yielded the following additional ones: P. 1. For read P. 1. read 85 21 -TUT Teri 161 21 HOT नना- 126 23 -ca -त्यु म 165 15 17an ग व्य- 129 9 -गीकारे -ङ्गीकारे 203 2 पूर्वत् पूर्ववत् 147 5 Fafae: - fefqet: 210 13 -अहं 156 7 -तद्दका- -तद्दि - 232 1 - कर- Appendix. 25 20 T T नत्वा- 40 22 qfar परिह- 37 21 नन्वे- 41 1 चति चेति 38 25 TH 42 25 SET -भाष्ये For ·60 In bringing out this work, I have received assistance, in various ways, from Pandits Kástínátha Sástrí Ashtaputre Punekar, Bechan Tiwárí, Bálakrishna S'ástrí Khandakar, and Vitthala S'astrí Jos'í Ambuvekar. To each and to all I offer my grateful acknowledgeinents. Ajmere, Rajputana; the 10th of September, 1855. ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS. P. I, notes, last line. For " niris'wara" read “niris'wara. ." The passage here intended will be founil at the sixth page of the prescnt work. P. 2, notes, l. 1. For “corresponding" read "corresponding, in some measure.” P.2, notes, l. 4. For “ pige read “ साख्या." P. 2, notes, ll. 20 and 26. For “ FIETETIT :” and “ súnkhyúl" read FERT:" and "sankhyák." P.9, notes, l. 7. Add references to the English translation of the Rigveda, Vol. I., p. 235, foot-note; and Vol. II, pp. 36 and 90, foot-notes. Also see, for a view adverse to that hastily expressed by the writer, the Nurulcta, Daivata-kúnda, 6, 7: p. 171 of Roth's edition. P. 9, notes, 1. 21. The S'abda-kalpa-druma, pp. 1831-2, cites the fifticth chapter of the Vúmana-purána, as making Sanatkunnára, Sanátana, Sanaka, and Sananılana, children of Dharma and Ilinsá. What follows, respecting Kapıla, Vodhu, Asuri, and Panchas'ıkha, is not altogether clear. P.9, notes, 1. 24. In the Bhágavata -purúna, I., 3, 11, Kapıla is spoken of as having only revived the Sánkhya. From the same work, IX, 8, 14, it appears, however, to be asserted that he originated it. The ensuing couplet, from the last section of the Padma-purána, is to the same effect: श्वेतोपपतिः सायप्रणेता सर्वसिविराट । विश्वप्रकाशितज्ञानयोगा मोहतमिसहा॥ Vishnu-vyúha-bheda-varnana chapter. A Hindu would harmonize these discordant assertions by assuming that they point to events of two several stages of the world's history, P. 10, notes, l. 22. If Colebrooke-Miscellancous Essays, Vol I., pp. 230, 231--means to intimate that, in Gaudapáda's commentary, Panchas'ikha is said to be Kapila's disciple, either directly, or through A'suri, the assertion is an oversight. That A'suri was l'anchas'ıkha's preceptor is de- A ·61 clared in the seventieth kúriká ; but on this couplet Gaudapáda makes no remark. P. 11, notes, 1. 14 For “ 3" read “ 4." P. 12, notes, 1. 3. Colebrooke-Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 231- speaks of the passage given at the bottom of p 10 supra, and referred to at p. 17 infra, as being one of Panchas'ıkha's sútrus. But it is not so discriminated by Vyása, nor by Vyása's commeutators, though they name Panchas'ıkha as its author. Colebrooke, it is evident, did not suspect that reference was anywhere made to more than one work of this ancient writer, P. 12, notes, 1. 25. Gaudapáda cites this couplet twice. On one occasion he reads "vaset” for “sthitah.” The same distich is quoted by Cháritra Sinha Gapı, in his commentary on the Shad-dars'ana-samuchchayn. P. 12, notes, last line. For " papma” read "pápná." P. 14, notes, 1. 8. Of this passage the words safturfa atharfi are adduced as Panchas'ıkha's, in the concluding chapter of the Sarva-dars'ana-sangraha. P. 15, notes, l. 22. For “ propitiation-service” read" satisfaction-service.' The former term rather translates s'únti, a very common office of religion, among the Hindus. P. 15, notes, 1. 31. In place of “Rudra” there are preferable grounds for conjecturing "Riblu.” See the Translation of the Viskņu-purána, p. 38. P. 17, notes, 1 24. Elsewhere, however, it is denied that Kapıla was son of Kardama, by Devahútı; another and later wife of the patriarch, of unspecified name, being the sage's mother. As to Devahútı, she is represented as the daughter, not of Manu Syayambhuva.-- -a8 is ordinarily declared, but of Trınabindu. The original of these statements is expressed in the following words: धर्मदत्त उवाच। जयश्च विजयश्चैव विष्णाः । म श्रुता। fapie atani gir etuia ta agaftŪT I 30 गणावचतुः। टणबिन्दोस्तु कन्यायां देवहन्यां पुरा द्विज । कर्दमस्य तु दृष्ट्वैव पुवौ वा सम्बभवतुः ॥ २ ॥ ज्येष्ठा जयः कनिष्ठेाऽभूट वि यश्चेति नामतः । न्यस्यामभवत् पश्चात् कपिलो योगधर्मवित् ॥ ३ ॥ Padma-purána, Pátála-khanda, 97th chapter. P. 20, notes, 1. 6. For " Gauri-varnana" read " Gauri-viváha-varnana." P. 20, notes, 1. 8. For “Kalápa"-which should have been “ Kalpa”. read "Indraprastha."

·62 22 P. 20, notes, 1. 15. The Kapila-gitá, in a detached form, has also been found. It professes to be a part of the Padma-purána, and is concerned with the practices of the yoga, or theocrasy. P 21, notes, l. 24. For “ Nagojí" read “ Nágojí." P. 26, notes, 1. 21. According to Colebrooke, the Pás'upatas-like the followers of Mıs'ra—maintain the distinct and separate existence of the efficient and material causes of the universe." Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 407, 409, and 412. P.26, notes, l. 26. The author of the Shat-tantri-sára proves to be no other than the Nílalcantha who annotated the Mahábhárata, and wrote the Vedánta-kalaka. His parents were Govinda and Phullámbiká; his line was that of Gautama; his family name was Chaturdhara ; and he resiled at Kúrpara, now Koipar, in Maharashtra, to the west of the Godávaní, near the temples of S'ukres'wara and Kaches'wara. A man who calls himself grandson of this Nílakantha, is now living at Benares. Govinda Dikshita—the Govinda above mentioned, or some other, but of the Chaturdhara famılywas father of S'iva Dikshita, author of the Dharma-tattwa-prakás'a, the date of which is S'aka 1668, or A. D. 1746. P. 27, notes, 1. 15. For “faqa:" read “ facea:" P. 28, notes, 1. 12. For“-FIT" read "-FITT." P. 33, notes, 1. 5. For " Ashtaputra” read " Ashtaputre." P. 33, notes, 1. 6. For "Rájá” read “Rája” Correct similarly at p. 36, notes, I. 23; and at p. 37, notes, 1. 30. P. 34, notes, 1. 15. The Jainas affect to have their own Sánklıyas, Mímánsakas, &c. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. II., p. XXXVI. P. 34, notes, 1. 29. The author of the Tattwa-chandra gives the title of Muni to I's wara Krishna, and distinctly calls him disciple of Panchas ikla. P. 35, notes, I. 2. For “Dúrgá” read “Durgú.” P. 35, notes, 1. 9. The use of aliases is by no means infrequent among Hindu authors. Though not, generally, of much interest, one occurs to me, which seems worth recording. Like the run of facts connected with Indian history, it has no better support, however, than the unwritten tradition of the schools. Jayadeva, the author of the Gita-govinda, is said to have been the same person as Pakshadhara Miséra, the dialectician. Report has it that his custom was to attend his Nyáya teacher no oftener than once a fortnight, and that he owed to this fact his title of Pakshadhara. Quite possibly this is mere fiction; and it may have had its origin, partially, in the circumstance that there was a logician Jayadeva, who is spokeri of as having been likewise a poet. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., p. 51, 1.5 ; and its Appendıx, p. 161.

·63 Professor Lassen-Gíta-govinda, Prolegomena, p.v.-, for want of an opportunity to examine the Chandraloka, is in doubt whether the Jayadeva to whom it is attributed be identifiable with the lyric poet of the same name. The question is one of no difficult decision. The Jayadeva of the Chandráloka was, by his own showing, son of Mahádeva, surnamed Yájnika, and of Sumitra. Jayadeva, the author of the Prasannarúghava drama, particularizes the same persons as his parents, and further states that his family was denominated Kauņdınya. Whether the Chandráloka, a dry technical treatise, was the production of the writer of the Gitagovinda, could scarcely be ascertained by comparing the necessarily different styles of the two compositions. The Prasanna-rúghava is, however, every way inferior, in respect of language and general execution, to the elegant Lays of Govinda; and there is no ground on which the position may be controverted, that the rhetorician and the play-wright were the same individual. Internal evidence even is quite sufficient to determine the point under consideration, independently of the discrepancy offered in the accounts given, severally, of their extraction, by the rhetorician and dramatist, and by the author of the Gíta-govinda. Moreover, if, following Lassen, we account as spurious the stanza with which this collection of poems, according to many manuscripts, terminates, we are left without any notice whatever, by its author, of his parentage. And why, if the Chandráloka and Prasanna-righava were also his, should he have consigned to them a specification which he has denied to his foremost performance ? The couplet above mentioned, which Professor Lassen presumes to be forged, is objected to, by him, on the assumption that the Bhojadeva whom Jayadeva is made, by it, to name as his father, must be the sovereign of Dhárá, But Bhojadeva or Bhojarája is by no means an appellation of unique incidence More than one chieftain is certainly known to have borne it; and it has not yet been shown that, among persons so called, the grammarian, for instance, has any claim to be regarded as a royal patron rather than as an actual maker of books. In a word, it is not imperative to take such a termination as deva or rája to be indicative of rank. It may be part of a name ; as in Varadarája, Govindarája, Jayadeva, and Harshadeva. The name of Jayadeva's mother is written, by Lassen, Rámádeví. My own manuscripts have Vámadeví Jayadeva's father is called Bhojadeva, by the Brahman Raychaud, in his metrical Hindi translation of the Gítagovinda, the Gíta-govindúdars'a. It remains to speak of the Ríma-gita-govinda, a poem on the incongruity of whose title Lassen justly animadverts. Gíta-govinda, Prolegomena, p. VI. This wretched affair purports to have, for its author, one Jayadeva, ·64 of Janakapura. So much the poetaster himself tells us; and I know not on what authority Professor Wilson-Machenzie Collection, Vol. I., p. 103– concludes him to be one with the poet of Rádlhá andl Kushpa. The subject of the Rúma-gita-govinda is that of the Rómáyana. Its extent is 360 couplets; divided into sis cantos, which bear the designations of Súnan da. raghunandana, Vyta-paras'urúma, Jagannivása-pravása, Hanumad-uga. mana, Lankú-vijaya, and Rúma-rájábhisheka. P. 35, notes, l. 31. S'ankara, it should seem, has wildly been assigned to the eighth century before the Christian era. See Mr. B H. Hodgson's Illustrations of the Literature and Religion of the Buddhists, p. 18, footnote. P. 35, notes, 1 34. The notion that Gaudapáda was pupil of S'uka, the son of Vyása, is generally received by the Bráhmans. See, for this association, Colebrooke's reference to the S'ankara-vijaya : Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 104. Gangadhaia Saraswati, author of the Dattútrcya-charitra, a metrical composition in the Marnhattí language, deduces his own discipular descent, through S'uka and Gaudapáda, from Siva, as follows: S'ankara, Vishnu, Brahma, Vasishtha, Sakti, Parás'ara, Vyása, S'uka, Gaudapáda A'chárya, Govinda A'chárya, S'ankara A'cháiya, Vis'warúpa, Bodha Gır, Jnána Gırı, Sinhála Gırı, I's 'wara Tirtha, Nrısınha Tirtha, Vidyá Tírtha, Siva Tirtha, Bharati Tirtha, Vulyáranya, S'rípáda, Vidya Tirtha, ITalayánanda, Deva Tirtla, Vrında Saraswatı, Yádavendra Saraswati, Krishna Saraswati, Nursınla Saraswati, and Gangadhara Saraswati. Gangádlıara had seven fellowstudents, all bearing the title of Saraswatı: Bála, Krishna, Upendra, Mádhava, Sadánanda, Jnánajyoti, and Siddhendra. The Mitákshart, a commentary on the Brahma-sútra, by Annam Bhatta, son of Tirumala, contains a list, identical, down to Sankara A'churya, with the foregoing; except that Vasishịha is precedcil by Bralıma and Bialmá. Gaudapáda, it appears credible, belongs to the very precinct of the age of fable. P. 36, notes, 1 9. Bhánu Bhatta, in the Dwaita-nirnaya-siddhúnta-sangraha, speaks of the author of a treatise having the name of Dwaita-nır nuya, as being lis paternal grandfather. But his own work, which cites it, proves that he does not mean the Dwarta-nirnaya of Váchaspati Misra. Blámu Bhatta's parents were Nílakantha Bliatta and Gangá. The title of Blatta 15 borne by Mímánsakas P 36, notes, l. 29 The Ratnúkura, compiled under the patronage of Chapdes'wara, embraces at least seven sections, entitled Krityi, Duna, Kya. rahura, s'uddha, Príjá, Vivída, and Grihasthu. Of these, Váchaspati ·66 he was assisted, in preparing it, by Ananta Dílsluta, son of Vis'wanátha Dikshita. The father of Blává Ganes'a Dikshita was Bhává Vis'wanatha Dikshita; and, if the lattci be one mth Vis'wanátha Díksluta, and if Bhává Ganes'a Dikshita be brother of Ananta Díkshita, we are enabled to form a pretty correct estimate as to the time of Vijnána Bhikshı. For Náráyaņa Bhatta's youngest brother's secoul son, Raghunátha Bhatta, dates his Kúlatattwa-orvechana in Samvat 1677, or A. D. 1620. Vijnána may be placed fifty or sixty years earlier. P 48, 1. 1. Cancel the sentence "To the end," &c. P. 50, notes, 1. 1. Substitute as follows: The words vikrita modificu' and varkárika 'modificational,' as synonymes of síttwika ' pure,' must be taken to denote, by eminence, the highest of the three cgotistic transmutations of nature ; these being held to result from that disturbance in the equipoise of its ingredients, by virtue of which it becomes eductive. Misapprehending the retrospective reference of the term vikrita, in the twenty-fifth kúriki, M Saint IJilaire describes 'pure' egotism as almost being at once a modification and not a modification. Egotism, at the very instant of its emanation, assumes three distinct shapes. It would, accordingly, preclule doubt, iſ the particular sort of egotism had in contemplation were always characterized by its special epitlict. Of egotism divested of qualifications thc Sánkhya teaches us nothmg. There is no such thing m the scheme. P. 55, notes, l. 21. A passage m Hippolytus which runs counter to this statement, escaped my notice. Ilavmg premised the names of Valentine, Heracleon, and Ptolemæus, Hippolytus proceeds in these words : Και γάρ τούτων έστιν αρχή των πάντων μονάς αγέννητος, άφθαρτος, ακατάληπτος, απερινόητος, γόνιμος, και πάντων της γενέσεως αιτία των yerovévwv. Omnium Hæresmm Refutatio, ed. Miller, P. 185.

·BIBLIOTHECA INDICA; A COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS, PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE Hon. Court of Directors of the East India Company, AND THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE А AT C CTY A, A TWO The ELEMENTS OF POLITY, by KÁMANDAKI. Edited by Bábu RÁJENDRALÁL MITTRA. Already published, Fasciculus I. being No. 19. The LALITA VISTARA, or Memoirs of the Life and Doctrines of SÁKYA SINHA. Eưited by Babu RÁJENDRALÁL MITTRA. Already published, Fasciculi I, and II. Nos. 51 and 73. The Prákrita Grammar of Kradíswara. MITTRA, dited by Bábu RÁJENDRALÁL An English translation of the CHHÁNDOGYA UPANISHAD of the Sáma Veday By Bábu RÁJENDRALÁL MITTRA. Already published, Fasciculus I. No. 78. The SARTADARSANA SANGRAIA ; or an Epitome of the different systems of Indian Philosophy. By MADHAVÁCHÁNYA. Edited by Pandita I'S'WARACHANDRA VIDYÁSÁGARA. Aleady published, Fasciculus I. No. 63. The VEDÁNTA SÚTRAS. Edited by DR. ROER, Published, Fasciculi I. and II. Nos. 64 and 89. The TAITTIRÍYA SANHITÁ of the Black Yajur Veda. Edited by Dr. E. ROER. Published, Fasciculi I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. and VIII. Nos. 92, 117, 119, 122, 131, 133, 134, and 137. Tho TAITTIRYA BRAHMANA of the Black Yajur Veda. Edited by Bábu RÁJENDRALÁL MITTRA. Published, Fasciculi I. and II. Nos. 125 and 126. The SÚRYA-SIDDHÁNTA, with its Commentary the Gúdhártha-prakás'aka. Edited by Fitz-EDWARD HALL, A. M. Alrcady published, Fasciculi I. II. and III. Nos. 79, 105 and 115. The TALE OF VASAVADATTA', by SUBANDHU, with its Commentary entitled Darpana. Edited by FITZ-EDWARD HALL, A. M. Published, Fasciculi I. and II. Nos. 116 and 130. The MA'EKANDEYA PURA'NA. Edited by K. M. BANNERJEA, already published, Fascicul. I. II. and III. Nos. 114, 127 and 140. * For a list of the Persian and Arabic works in progress, See No. 130 of the Biblioheca India.

·WORK PU LI HED, . 119. #!...!!! I.1. 1 14 0 #O .. ..... Former Reduced Price. Price. The first two Lectures of the Sanhita of the Rig Veda, with the Commentary of Madhava Xchárya, and an Enge lish translation of the text. Edited by Dr E. Roer, Nos. 1 to 4, 400 2 80 The Brihad Aranyaka [punisher, with the Commentary of Sankara Acharya, dia thu Gloss of Ananda Giri. Edited by Dr. E. Roer, Nos. 5 to 13, 16 and 18, 11 00 6110 An English Translation of the above Upanishad and Coin. mentary. Nos. 27, 38 and 135, 300 The Chhảndogya Upanishad, with the Commentary of S'an. kara Acharya, and the Gloss of Ananda Giri, Edited by Dr. E. Roer, Nos. 14, 15, 17, 20, 23 and 25, 600 3 12 0 The Tonttinita, 4itamára annt s'wétás'watara Upanishads with Com , "iidi 10:, 33, anul 34, 300 1 140 The Is'á, Kéna, Katha, Prasina, Mundaka, and Mándukya Upanishads, with Commentury, &c. Edited by Dr. E. Roer, Nos. 24, 26, 28, 29, 30 and 31, 600 3 12 0 The Trittıriya, Aittaréya, s'wétás'watara, Kéna, I's'ág Katha, Pras'na, Mundaka and Mándukya Upanishads. Translated froin the Original Sanskrit, by Dr. E. Roer, Nos. 41 and 50, 2 0 0 Division of the Cateyories of the Nyáya Philosophy, with a Commentary and an English Translation, by Dr. E. Roer, Nos. 32 and 35, 200 i 10 Thy sú tal-Tiend or Mirror of Composition, by Viswavil lagen theo by Dr. E. Ruor, Nus 36, 37, 53, 51 and 55, 5 00 3 2 0 Tho Chaitanya Chandrovlaya Nataka of Kavikarnapuru. Elited by Bábu Rájendralál Mittra, Nus. 47, 48 amil 80, ........ 300 1 14 0 The UTTARA NarsiADA CHARITA, by Sri HARSA, with the Coininentury of Náráyana Eilitod by Dr. I. Roer Fase ciculi I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. and XIl. Nos. 39, 40, 42, 15, 16, 52, 67, 72, 87, 90, 120, 123 12 00 7 80 The SÁNKIYA-PRIT FIY:-D.. Elited by Fitz- Edward IIall, A. M., and 10 be translated by J. R Ballantyc, LL. D. Fasciculi 1. II. and 11)., being Nos. 91, 97 and 111, 000 4. HON - and 121, ..