English
Now, the Ratndkara is known to have been prepared under the superintendence of Chandes/wara, minister of Harasinha Deva, son of Bhaves’a, princes of Mithila; and it specifies, as the time of its publication, the S’aka year 1236, or A. D. 1314. Beyond this point, Vachaspati the lawyer cannot, then, be ‘carried into antiquity. The elder Vachaspati Mis’ra is several times quoted in the Sarva-dars’ana- sungraha of Madhava Acharya; and his glosson Vyase’s Yoga-bhdshya, as likewise his Tattwa-kaumud?, 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 expo- sitions. Such are: “Madhava flourished towards the middle of the fourteenth century.” The no more than ten or twelve generations which Colebrooke reckons back from 1796 to Vachaspati 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 Madhava A’charya. Moreover, I have seen a copy of part of the Bhdémati-nibandha, which was transcribed in the Samvat year 1428, or A. D. 1872,—a date irreconcilable with Colebrooke’s com- putation. Vachaspati, in the brief enumeration, at the close of the Bhdmaté-niban- dha, of his own compositions, eight in number, does not name, among them, a single one on jurisprudeace. This list, as expanded in the Veddnta-kalpa- taru, embraces the following works: one on the Nydya, the Nydéya-vdrtika- tétparya-ttké; one on the Sinkhya, the Tatéwa-kaumudi; one on the Yoga, the Tattwa-s’éradé; one on the Mimansd, the Nydya-kanikd, a gloss on the Vidhi-viveka ; one on Bhatta’s exposition of the Mimansé, the Tattwa-bindu ; two on the Vedanta, the Tatiwa-samtkshé, which is commentary on the Brahma-siddhi, and the Bhdmati. Vichaspati 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 / fumous as a legal authority, his twofold character would not be celebrated, to this day, among the learned of India. Several of these works are _po longer known to exist. There is some uncertainty whether Zattwa-s’dradé be another name for the Pdtanjala- x“ “ siitra-bhdshya-vyskhyé ; but it seems, from the Veddnta-kalpataru, to be so. Colebrooke is, perhaps, incautious in saying that Vachaspati “is the author of other treatises on dialectics,” besides the | Nydya-vdrtika-tdtparya-tiké, V&chaspati, if the Bhdmatt-nibandha, speaks of himself as living in the reign of one Nriga Rajg. Common fame makes him to have been a native of TirhGy ; and his family name, Mis’ra, marks him as a native of Gangetic Hindusthan. ——s Colebrooke—Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 233—seems to be of opinion that the title Tattwa-kaumud? is applied to Vachaspati’s Sankhya work only by comparatively recent abbreviation. But the concluding distich of the book a“ 38 a. The Tattwa-kaumudi-vydkhyd, by Bharati Yati, pupil of Bodhéranya Yati. b. The Tattwdrnava, or Tattwdmyita-prakds'int ; by Ra- ghavananda Saraswati,* disciple of Adwayénanda or Adhwaryv Bhagavat-pdda, disciple of Vis’ wes’wara. c. The Kaumudi-prabhd, by Swapnes'wara, son of Vé- hinis’a.t d. The Tattwa-chandra, by Néréyana Tirtha Yati,t pupil of Vasudeva Tirtha, and disciple of Rama-govinda Tirtha. e. The Sdnkhya-tattwa-vildsa, Sdnkhya-vritti-prakds’a, o¥ Sdnkhydrtha-sankhydyika ; by Raghundtha Tarkavagis’a Bhat- t4ch4rya, son of S‘iva-rama Chakravarti, son of Chandravandya, itself, if not spurious, contains the shorter form. It also occurs in the list of Vachaspati’s works, as lately detailed; and in Médbava A'charya’s Sarva-dars ana-sangraha. The Sdnkhya-kaumudé was published in Calcutta, in the Samvat year 1905, or A. D. 1848: pp. 49, small 8vo. * Toa writer or writers of this or similar name, Hindu literature is beholden for a number of volumes on the Vedanta and Mimansé, See my Catalogue, &e., Vol. [., pp. 70, 92, 139, and Appendix. Raghavananda quotes Aniruddha, and was, consequently, posterior to him. + Vahinis’a had a brother surnamed Vidyanivasa; and this is the title of the father of Rudra Bhattacharya, the logician. A person called Swapnes’- wara has contributed a series of annotations on the Aphorisms of S’andilya, entitled 8/dudilya-s'ata-sitrt-bhdshya. * Of this work I have seen only a fragment of the beginning, going over Viachaspati’s notes on the first eight kérikds. For several other works by Narayana Tirtha Yati, see my Catalogue, &c., Vol. L; pp. 88, 107, and Appendix. Colebrooke says, ‘He was author likewise of a gloss on the Yoga-s'éstra, as appears from his own references to it.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p. 233. This statement has been sub- stantially verified. There occurs, in his Sdnkhya-chandrikd, a passage in which he speaks of his commentary on the Yoga-sitra. At p. 67 of this volume there are three couplets, introduced as if original. Two of them are cited by Narayana Tirtha Yati, who, therefore, perhaps , came after Vijnina_ Bhikshuyy Saye 39 son of Kas'indtha, son of Balabhadra, son of Sarvavanda Mis’ra. This is little more than a jejune epitome of the Sdnkhya-kau- mudi, with a preface briefly explaining the Tatiwa-samdsa, which it repeats. vf. The Sdnkhya-tattwa-vibhdkara.* Til. The Sdnkhya-chandrikd, by Nérgjyana Tirtha Yati, ‘ [ author of the Tatitoa-chandra, which has been spoken of above. IV. The Sdnkhya-kaumudf,+ by Rima-krishna Bhattacharya, “who is said to borrow freely from the author of the work last named. The Sdnkhya-sdra-viveka, or Sdnkhya-séra,t by Vijnéina Bhik- shu, consists of an expansion of t the _Sdnkhya- -karikd, and_an an, abridgement of the writer's own Sdnkiv ya-pravachana-Dhishya. ON emer renner waren. eee | * This work I know only from the Ist Vol., by Dr. Weber, of Die Hand- schriften-Verzeichnisse der Kéniglichen Bibliothek: Berlin: 1853, p. 638, Dr. Weber is in doubt whether its author’s name be, or be not, Vans‘idhara. f 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 Sdnkhya-sdra, Prof. Wilson leaves this point un- discussed. Sénkhya-kérika, Preface, p. vii. Colebrooke calls Rama-krishna “a learned, and not ancient, writer of Bengal.” He may be identifiable with Rima-krishna Bhattécharya Cha- kravarti, pupil of Raghunitha Bhattichirya S’iromani. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., p. 51. { In prose and verse; three chapters of the former, and six of the latter. The metrical portion consists of kdrikds; and contains about 270 couplets, Principally in the anushtubh measure. Colebrooke calls this work a “ trea tise on the attainment of beatitude in this life.” Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., p- 231. Its seope is, however, rather wider; comprehending salvation in general, as the meed of Sankhya perfection The Rev. William Ward adventured an English translation of this treatise, V in his work on the Hindus ; Vol. IL, pp. 121—172: 8vo. ed. of 1822, Immediately succeeding the invocation of the Sénkhya-sdra-viveka, is the following passage weqaifcaa auamad feafeaq grewarcaaaa Praia saspea u 40 The Sdnkhya-tattwa-pradipa, by Kavirdja Yati or Bhikshu,* ¢ pupil of Vaikuntha, is a brief exposition of the Sankhya system. The Sdnkhydrtha-tatiwa-pradipikd, by Bhatta Kes‘ava, son of Sadénanda, son of Bhatta Kes’ava, is a treatise resembling the last.t ara? setam wrergutaa aifcarag | aIsadIsa awa aura weaai aaa: q Mr. Ward’s version of these couplets runs thus: “The nature of spirit S was examined by me briefly in the Sdnkhya-kdriké; according to my ability I now publish the Sdnkhya-séra-viveka, in which I have collected the essence of the Sankhya doctrines, which may all be found in the kérikds.” The obvious rendering is, however, very different: ‘The Séxkhya-kdriké has discussed the nature of spirit but meagrely: Vijnana, in the Sdnkhya- séra-viveka, therefore dilates on it. On the other hand, the processes of the Sankhya have, in the kériké 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. : t+ Colebrooke speaks of a Sankhya 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., p. 234. Raya Mukuta, annotating the word upalabdhi, in his gloss on the Amara- kos’a, apparently quotes from a work called Sénkhya-durs'ana. The Sénkhya-muktdvalt, 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 strongly 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. IL, p. 121: 8vo. ed. of 1822. This list is, however, one mass of errors, and errors almost too gross to deserve advert- ence. It assigns the Kapila-bhdshya to Vis'wes’wari, perhaps instead -of Vijnanes‘w Wara, as one sometimes hears Vijnana Bhikshu incorrectly called ; while it é speaks of the Sdnkhya-pravachana-bhéshya as a distinct com- position, and neglects to name its author. Vachaspati Mis‘ra’s Sdnkhya- kaumudf is, in like manner, duplicated. This for a sample.