English
Though the heretic would, of course, eventually suc- cumb, 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 degrce as to occasion little doubt or dif- * Nor was S’ankara here constrained, in order to enforce his 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 tines, sufficiently prone to have recourse. he author of the S'ankara-dig-vijaya, unscrupulous fabler ns he was, has yet described the Sankhya theory with sufficient accuracy. It is difficult to say thtether he is equally exact in his account of the ascendancy which it had acquired, in his day, among its professors. S‘ankara’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: ATTA qurd fe aywafearcua | wae GaAs FT HAGA Tera TTA tt Thar agasaaray afar efafear eure ~ ESS 3 afegightaQued waraaaa | <r | “The chief one—or primeval nature —is the equilibrium of the three quali- ties; the source of the great prineiple, or inéelligence, and of the rest of the derivative material principles ; wndiscernible, as cause ; also discernible, in its products ; singular in the world; superior to what—viz., intelligence—ig itself superior, tx a descending series. ‘Through the mere worship thereof do men attain salvation, and Kapila aud other teachers engaged in the most exalted contemplation.’ The latter couplet, if not a forgery, is scarcely in accord with M. Saint- ilaire’s assertion: “ Le Bonddhisme est devenu une religion; et c’est un but que n’a jamais poursuivi l’école du Saukhya.’’? Premier Mémoire sur le Saukhya, p. 4. > 58 ficulty. Nene 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 prin- ter’s hands, two other manuscripts were obtained. One was undated ; the other was transcribed in the Samvat 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 San- skrit; 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 T have, also, frequently referred to Aniruddha’s and Mahddeva’s readings of the aphorisms. Of these sentences, unaccompanied by commentary, I had two excellent manuscripts. To ascertain the sentences the more completely, L likewise collated three very accurate copies of Nages’a Bhatta’s abstract of my author’s text. Ndges’a cites the aphorisms at leugth.* For the tedious array of emendations which deform the con- * The first edition of the Sénkhya-pravachanarbhdshya bears the imprint : of Serumpore, 1821: 8vo. pp. 220. This seems to be the publication an- nounced as having been projected by ‘‘ Mr. Carey and his qssistants,” un- der the auspices of the Council of Fort William, and the Asiatic Society of Bengal. See Roebyck’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 footenote at the bottom of pp. 21—24 supra. The editors of the volume had the advantage pf a manuscript, or manuscripts, much superior to the use they made of their appliances, Seyeral of the longer additional passages which I derived from my godices Jast 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 Sinkhya Philosophy of Kapila, with Illustrative Extracts from the Commentaries.” It was followed, in 1854, by a second fasciculus, com- pleting the fourth Book. 59 clusion of the volume, I plead my distance from the press, and the brittleness of Anglo-Indian type-metal.* ln A Bangali translation of the Sénkhya-pravachana-bhdéshya, entitled Sdn- khya-bhdshd-sangraka, was undertaken by Ramajaya Tarkélankara Bhatti- charya, son of Mrityunjaya. So, at least, the work itself sets forth: but the Friend of India Magazine for 1823, No. VIIL, 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 Vidyalankéra, 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 bave 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-ninth Aphorism of the first Book—according to my number- ing. The volume was published at Serampore, in 1818. It opens with a short preface in Sanskrit ; and it gives the sdtras in the original language, and in.large characters. At Benares have seen, in manuscript, a prose translation, in the pro- vincial dialect, of the Sénkhya-siitra and of Vijnina’s exposition in abstract. The author was Ahitégni Rakshapdla Dibe; who also showed me Hindi versions, made by himself, on a like model, of the Yoga, Nydya, Vais’e- shika, Vedanta, and Mimans&, Aphorisms, and of S’indilya’s Sentences un Devotion. Ench of these translations was accompanied, like the Sdukhya- stra, by a Hindi gloss, abridged from the Sanskrit. * A more thorough search for defects than that which resulted in the list of errata at the end of the volume, has yielded the following additional ones: P.. AA; For read Pp oL For read 86 21 -erarar -aTarat 161 21 waat: waar. 126 23 -aaR AA 165 15 way. aware 129 9 -Flare-F tae 208 2 qaqa 147 5 -fafeu: -efafay: 210 13 -ey _ 136 7 -aRa- -afeart- 232 1 Et Et Appendix. : 25 20 aa wan. 40 22 afae- ufce- 37 21 aa- wa 41 1 fa afar 88 25 -WIY = -wTE 42 25 -grq Rag 60 In bringing out this work, I have received assistauce, in vari- ous ways, from Pandits Kds‘indtha Sastri Ashtaputre Piinekar, Bechan Tiw4ri, Balakrishna S/dstri Khandakar, and Vitthala S‘Astri Jos'i Ambuvekar. To each and to all I offer my grateful acknowledgements. Ajmere, Rajputana; the 10th of September, 1855. ADDITIONS AND EMENDATIONS. P. 1, notes, last line. For “ niris’wara” read ‘‘niris‘wara.” The passage here intended will be found at the sixth page of the present work. P. 2, notes, 1. 1. For “corresponding” read “corresponding, in some measure.” P. 2, notes, 1.4. For “ areq’’ read “ area.” P. 2, notes, I. 20 and 26. For “qrerar:” and “ sénkhydh” read “geen: and “ sankhyGh.” P. 9, notes, 1.7. Add references to the English translation of the Rig- veda, 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 Nirukta, Daivata-kiénda, 6,7: p. 171 of Roth’s edition. P. 9, notes, 1. 21. The S’abda-kalpa-druma, pp. 1831-2, cites the fiftieth chapter of the Vémana-purdna, as making Sanatkumira, Sanatana, Sanaka, and Sauandana, children of Dharma and Lins4. What follows, respecting Kapila, Vodhu, Asuri, and Panchas’ikha, is not altogether clear. P. 9, notes, 1.24. In the Bhdgavata-purdna, I., 3, 1, Kapila is spoken of as having only revived the Sankhya. 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-purdna, is to the same effect: yaalvagfa: sreaqswat vafefacie | faarataaaraaar areafaeer Vishnu-vytha-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, 1. 22. If Colebrooke—Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., pp. 230,231—means to intimate that, in Gaudapada’s commentary, Paneha- s’ikha is said to be Kapila’s disciple, either directly, or through A’suri, the assertion is an oversight. That A’suri was Panchas‘ikha’s preceptor is de- G1 clared in the seventicth kdriké s but on this couplet Gaudapdda makes no remark. P. 12, notes, 1.'14. For “3” read “ 4.” P. 12, notes, 1.3. Colebrooke—Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. 1., 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‘ikha’s stras. But it is not so discri- minated by Vyasa, nor by Vyisa’s commentators, though they name Pancha- s‘ikha 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. Gaudapada cites this couplet twice. On one occasion he rends “ vaset”’ for “sthitah.” The same distich is quoted by Charitra Sinha Gani, in his commentary on the Shad-dars’ana-samuchchaya. P. 12, notes, last line. For ‘* papmd” read “pdpmd.” P. 14, notes, 1. 8. Of this passage the words wafcutfam veg ae fat: are adduced ag Panchas‘ikha’s, in the concluding chapter of the Sarva-dar- s'ana-sangraka. P. 15, notes, 1. 22. For “ propitiation-service” read “ satisfaction-service.”” The former term rather translates s’éuti, a very common office of religion, among the Hindus. P. 15, notes, 1. 31. In place of “ Rudra” there are preferable grounds for conjecturing “Ribhu.” See the Translation of the Vishnu-purdna, p. 38. P.