English
41 Of the history of our commentator, Vijnina Bhikshu, or Vijndna Yati, ‘little has been discovered. We are even unac- quainted 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 Nages’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: Bhavé Ganes‘a Dikshita,t Prasida Madhava Yogi,§ and Divya The ignorance of our pandits very ordinarily confounds Vijnina Bhikshu with Vijnines’wara, or Vijnina Yogi, author of the Afitdkshard, the ccle- brated commentary on the Ydjnavalkya-smriti, But there is no evidence whatever that they are identical. Vijnanes’wara, who bore the title of Bhattiraka, was son of Padmanfbha Bhatta, of the stock of Bharadwaija. Ilis preceptor was Vis’wardpa A/charya, likewise a scholiast of Yéjuaval- kya. Ishall not undertake to establish that this Vis’warhpa A’charya was the same person as Sures/wara Acharya, secularly known as Mandana Mis’ra, a disciple of S‘ankara A’charya. Sce my Catalogue, &e., Vol. L., pp. 89, 91, 131. : * Sce a foot-note to p. 32, supra. In the prefatory verses of Vijnana’s Pétanjala-bhdshya-vdrtika, according to one of the many MSS. of it which I have examined, allusion is made to one Bhavadeva, as an authority on the Yoga. Bhavadeva Mis’ra of Patna, author of the Pdtanjaliydbhinava- bhdshya, a commentary on the Yoga-sitra, scems to be intended. But of his age I know nothing. t M. Saint-Hilaire says: ‘Un maitre n’a généralement qu’un disciple ; un gorou n’ a qu’un bralmatchiri.” Premicr Mémoire sur le Sinkhya, p. 7. Again: La science, ainsi que j’ai eu occasion de le dire au début de ce mémoire, se transmet, dans )’Inde, habituellement d’un seul maitre & un seul disciple.” Ibid., p. 254. This is news in India. Such unnatural cases no longer exist, if, indeed, they ever existed. f Ihave seen a MS., without date, of the Tantra-chudémani or Dharma - mimdnsd-sangraha, an elementary Mimansi disquisition, by Krishna Deva, son of Rama A’charya, which professes to be in the hand-writing of this per- son, I hardly incline to consider the age of this MS. to be a couple of cen- turies, at the most. § Author of the S’drira-kdvikd-bhdshya ov Kérikértha-vinis' chaya, @ dis- G 42 Sinha Mis'ra.* Vijndna is the author of at least five several ‘ works, all of which are concerned with philosophy. Their titles, in the order, mainly, in which they were composed,t are as follows: the Vijndndmrita or Brahma-sitra-riju-vydkhyd,t the Stnkhya-pravachana-bhdshya or Sdnkhya-bhdshya,§ the Pdtanjalabhishya-vdrtika, or Yoga-vdrtika,\| the Sdnkhya- sdra-viveka or Sdnkhya-sdra, and the ‘Yoga-sdéra-sangraha, or Jndéna-pradipa.4 I have not proposed, in this preface, to treat of the Sénkhya system otherwise than with reference to the subordinate subjects of biography aud bibliography. A number of obvious occasions have, however, emerged for deviating from these rigid bounds. Yet, for thus trespassing beyond my limits, no apology may, per- haps, be expected; and none, certainly, will be requisite for a few sentences in defence of my proper charge, Vijnéua Bhikshu. sertation on the following enigmatical couplet, which its expounder claims to derive from the Mahdbhérata : wat % fatafary dtagqtiawge | ag fae fafeart ve oy feat Get vat This dissertation is in four sections, one being allotted to each measure of the distich. * Divya Sinha Mis’ra has written a commentary, by name S’drira-karikd- bhéshya-vartika, on the work mentioned in the last note, He styles himself fellow-student of Prasida Madhava Yogi, under Vijnina Bhikshu ; and he eulogizes Prasida Madhava as the most eminent of their master’s disciples: t+ Each of these works, from the last upwards, cites all that, as here disposed, precede it. But the Sdnkhya-bhdshya and the Yoga-vértika quote each other. Their author appears, accordingly, to have been engaged with both at the same time; unless he, or some one else, interpolated one or the other. {A commentary on Badardyana’s Aphorisms of the Vedanta; containing 7000 s’lokas. § Embracing s’7. 3400. {| A commentary on the Pdtanjala-bhdshya of Vyasa: s’l. 6300. {| A succinet exposition of the Yoga philosophy ; s’f. 830 circiter. 43 In India, at least, Vijnféa Bhikshu’s ability as an expositor- of the SAnkhya philosophy stands unimpeached. It has, how- ever, at last been disallowed by so considerable a scholar as M. Saint-Hilaire. But it will be easy to evince, after the ensuing ex- tract, 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 * VINGT-CINQUIEME SLOKA DE LA KARIKA. ** ensemble des onze principes doués de bonté émane du moi quand il est modifié également par la bonté. Du moi considéré comme élément primitif viennent les éléments grossiers; il est alors obscur ; et cette double émanation n’a lieu que par Pinfluence de Pactivité.’ *¢ Lorsque dans te moi la bonté ’emporte sur Pobscurité et sur la méchan- ceté ou passion, le moi est essenticllement pur; et, dans le langage des anciens maitres, le moi, & cet état, est appelé modifié. Sa véritable nature, c’est d’étre affecté par la bonté ; et quand il est ainsi affecté, la modification qu'il regoit est celle qu’il doit véritablement recevoir; ce n’est pas en quel- que sorte une modification pour lui, puisque son essence c’est d’étre bon. C’est du moi dans cette disposition que sortent les onze principes, doués alors comme lui de bonté. Qn se rappelle que les onze principes sont les cing organes de perception, les cinq organes d’action, et le manas, ou le cour, placé au onziéme rang. Quand au contraire le moi est affecté d’ob- scurité, on ne Pappelle plus Veikrita, le modifié; mais on DPappelle Bhot- tidi, ’élément primitif, Pobscur; et c’est de lui que sortent les cing élé- ments grossiers, les Bhoutini. Mais pour produire une ou lautre de ces créations, soit les onze organes doués de bonté, soit les cing éléments grose siers, le moi a besoin de P’intervention de Vactivité.* Par lui-méme le moi * The three gunas are, it may be, still an unread riddle; and I decline the attempt of improving on the interpretations of them that have been ven- tured by my predecessors. Prof. Wilson formerly wrote of them as follows: “ The Hindu system arranges all the attributes of spirit in action, under three heads or qualities ; the satiwa, rajas, and tamas. The first comprises the presence of all good, and absence of all evil; the last, the presence of all evil, and the absence Of all good; and the middle one is a mixed quality, in which the operation a2 44, est inerte: dans son état de pureté, il n’agit pas; il faut pour agir qu’il appelle & son aide un autre moi, qui est le moi actif; et, par Punion de ces ‘deux moi, se trouvent produits et : onze organes et les cing éléments grossiers. “Le moia done quatre états successifs, et comme quatre phases par lesquelles il passe pour arriver & la création. D’abord il est inerte et ne produit rien; puis il devient actif sous Vinfluence de la passion; ensuite il produit les onze organes, et pour les produire il est doué de bonté; enfin, doué d’obseurité, il produit les cing éléments grossiers. “Cette évolution du moi peut paraitre aussi bizarre que fausse; mais la pensée, quelle qu’en soit d’ailleurs la valeur, est fort claire; et le com- mentateur Gaoudapada n’hésite pas & l’expliquer comme on vient de le faire. Il entend le sloka de la Karik& en ce sens que c’est le moi qui donne nais- sance aux onze organes d’une part, et d’autre part aux cing éléments gros- siers. Mais Vidjnana Bhikshou, le commentateur des Soitras, entend tout of the affections and passions is strongest, and gives occasional predomi- nance to good and ill.” Quarterly Oriental Magazine for March, 1825 ; p- 21. Inthe next page he adds: ‘ S/ridhara and Nilakantha, it is true, interpret sattwa by dhairya, firmness, fortitude: but they intend the same thing, in fact, with the sattwa quality, or the Mens Solida of the upright man who is unmoved by ignorance and passion. Te apy appears to be the same as the Temperantia or Tranquillitas of the Stoics, whilst the rajas might be expressed by Perturbatio, and tamas by Intemperantia.” Mr. J. Ellis uiihesitatingly renders the names of the qualities by “ pure unimpassioned virtue,” passion,” und “ depravity inclining to evil ;” and he believes the apocryphal Sanchoniathon to have had some inkling of these technicalities, and to have bungle than in his mystical theogony. Notice of the Réméyana of Bodhidyana, in the Quarterly Oriental Magazine for September, 1826; pp. 8, 15, and 16. M. Saint-Lilaire says: “ Je crois qu’en résumé cette attribution des trois qualités & la nature cache une idée des plus simples: elle signifie unique- ment que les choses dans leur rapports avec nous, car c’est & homme que tout se rapporte dans ce systéme d’idéalisme, ne peuvent étre que de trois sortes, bonnes, mauvaises, ou indifférentes. J’ai vyainement cherché un autre sens aux théories du Sinkhya; je ne puis leur trouver que celui-li. Dans les nombreux passages des commentateurs, des poémes et des pourdnas od il est question des trois qualités, elles se présentent toujours sous cet aspect.” Premier Mémoire sur le Sankhya, p. 317. 45 autrement la pensée de Kapila. Je viens de diré que le Sottra du maitre est ici complétement identique, sauf un neutre en place d’un masculin, au vers de la Karika.