English
There is, accordingly, a presumption that Bhavé Ganes’a took these passages from this work, and under the impression that it was by Pancha- s‘ikha; and this suspicion is strengthened by the second exordial stanza of the Tattwa-ydthérthya-dipana, where its author clearly enough claims to have consulted Panchas‘ikha on the Tattwa-samdsa : VIAN’ Tigi tefwaq F | WAIT: FIA aMgyaAq7g | The attribution to Panchas‘ikha, of the Sdénkhya-krama-dipikd, if ever . actually maintained, would at once be invalidated by indicating the fact, that mention of Panchas‘ikha is made, in the work itself, supposed free from interpolation; and in such a manner, namely, with the title of échdrya, as to differentiate him from its author. The passages extracted below have, in every case, the guarantee of good authority for their being by Panchas‘ikha. They are given, in the first instance, by Vyisa, in his Pétanjala-bhdshya, anonymously: but three of Vyasa’s commentators ; Vachaspati Mis’ra, in the Pdétanjala-sitra-bhdshya- vyékhyd ; Vijnina Bhikshu, in the Yoga-vértika ; and Nigoji Bhatta, in the Pdtanjala-siitra-vritti-bhdshya-chchhdya-vydkhyd ; testify, one, or all, to their authorship. As for the passage at II., 22, Vichaspati merely says that it is by dgdmin, an authoritative sage; but the two other scholiasts declare it to be by Panchas‘ikha. HAVA AMAA Ha PT ATHNYT ataad wasiata Ta ZN feast. favaaeatoaraat qo aefaafaaiigad gar difrafed fafrad- we | L., 36. This passage is quoted and expounded by Kshemananda also, in the Nava- yoga-kallola, QWARIA A WaMaaafssray aa VULATT AMA ITS HUTA WICK TMAMNIS VATA? F wausfayg CaM Quer wawmfaas Beas Sugary aaa efaniay Il. 5, afer qt qeaardtefsaiatitawmangaa gard Taraafe Wat IL, 6, Ny 14 By the prevalent suffrage of mythology, Kapila* is reputed agaasgrranaa qeqaahaa SaMare: | FT! Tagan gfewrae yilaredard | TIE WeaEE Aga aeag dae ufc BIC swag eraser wenwrateaa atfesiag trad at az SSF Ta VataTCaTCMATaT Hast Ss ania | warqs frag. wfarataayrea| IL, 17. sig oq fay 709 aeaaae T aut qargaaray Wau afmar- aifaqaaarara VAM ATG A TAIT CMTS HT | IL, 18. aatcartaadt & SrepafarcaferageT e afcurfaay sfaapraa az- faaaqafa | wary WMATA TTS STAT qfaetcqarcaraaar afay- vafaficar fe sivafafcmrerad | IL, 20. afamamfedarnraqaararuragaria: Fam | IL, 22. eaifarat gufanag TTT fewest amanfa afana: wy 7a- aaa qeIeIRT! TU cas faa wHarae fa a TETAATAT- ara fara & RAG Barry vaaag cafa ART AA AY WIAD AAU | IIL, 13. quémrauratae aire waut wafa 1 LIL, 40. Little can safely be conjectured with regard to the character of the work or works from which these sentences were collected by Vyasa. They may be text ; and they may be commentary. Probably they are Sankhya; but, possibly, they pertain to the Yoga, That Panchas’ikha treated of other subjects than the Sankhya, may be inferred from a remark of Vijnina Bhikshu’s ;: wrsamrat fest ryat qufearstaaa sige sarqafer Yoga-vdrtika, 1., 25. * The more ordinary ménasa, or mind-begotten, sons of Brahma vary, as specified in different Puranas, from seven to more than twice that number ; “but,” as Prof. Wilson remarks, “the variations are of the nature of addi- tions made to an apparently original enumeration of but seven, whose names generally recur.” Vishpu-purdna, p. 48, note 2. One such group is made up of Marichi, Atri, Angiras, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratuand Vasishtha ; the well-known ‘ seven Rishis.” Mahdébhdrata, XI1., 7570 and 13075. This : list is modified, in the same book of the Mehdbhérata, 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 pro- geny that is to furnish us with Kapila. 45 to have been a son of Brahmé; but he is otherwise described as Prof. Wilson once wrote as follows: “ The founder of the Sénkhya philo- sophy is named Kupila; who, as one of the seven great Rishis, is one of the sons of Brahma. There are other accounts of his origin; but none more satis- factory.” Quarterly Oriental Magazine for Sept., 1825; p. 12. That Kapila is anywere ‘styled “ one of the seven great Rishis,” needs confirma- tion, for all the emphasis with which other accounts of him are here disere- dited. Nothing of this is to be found in the Translation of the Vishnu- purdna. Colebrooke,—-Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. I., p. 229,—refers to Gaudapida, in proof of Kapila’s being ranked as “one of the seven great Rishis.” Neglecting the collocation of the words in the passage quoted by Gaudapada, Colebrooke has turned subject into predicate. The citation runs thus: wa WAU Gat TH START aeag: | ‘These seven sons of Brahm&i were called great Rishis.’ Auother group of kindred emanations likewise comprehends seven persons. In the Mahdbhdrata, XII., 13078-9, they are said to be Sana, Sanat-sujata, Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanat-kumara, Kapila, and Sanitana. In the passage quoted, in all likelihood from some Purana, near the commencement of Gauda- pida’s commentary on the Sénkhya-kdrikd, Kapila still appears, but as intro- ducing several accredited Sinkhya doctors, to the extrusion of as many of his former associates: the list now standing thus; Sanaka, Sananda, Sanitana, Asuri, Kapila, Vodhu, and Panchas‘ikha. In the tarpana, or propitiation-ser- vice, of at least one school of the Veda, that of Madhyandina, the same per- sons are invoked, and in the same order, except that the names of A’suri and Kapila are transposed. See Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol.I., p. 144. In the Padma-puréna, latter section, Vishyu-vyzha-bheda-varnana chapter, 14, 15, with other changes, Kapila himself makes way for another; the set now con- sisting of Sanaka, Sananda, Sandtana, Sanat-kumira, Jita, Vodhu, and Pancha-. s‘ikha. See As. Res. Vol. XI, p.99. The Keéirma-purdna, former section, chap. VIL, 18, 19, with additional alterations, reduces the seven to five; Sanaka, Sanateana, Sanandana, Ror (Rudra ?), and Sanat-kum4ra ; whom it qualifies as great Yogis. The first three and the last of these five hold, apparently, pecu- liar eminence in the family of Brahma; since from them, according to Gauda- pada on the forty-third Kérikd, originated, severally, virtue, knowledge, dis- passion, and irresistible will, The names of these four also occur, unaccom- panied, as if they were to be regarded as representative, at III., 12, 3, of the Bhdgavata-purdua. 16 an incarnation of Vishnu.* He is also recounted to have been Sananda and Sanandana are, doubtless, prosodial varieties of the same name ; and Jita seems to be put, by metrical licence, for Sanat-sujita. In the Kiirma-purdna, latter section, V., 18, parts of the two classes of Brah- mé’s mental sons, several new characters being added to the first, are named together, thus : Sanat-kumira, Sanaka, Bhrigu, Sanatana, Sanandana, Rudra, Angiras, Vamadeva, S‘ukra, Atri, Kapila, and Marichi. But it is worthy of ob- servation that this Purana 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, Marichi, Angiras, Bhrigu, Atri, Dharma, Sankalpa, Pulastya, Pulaha, Kratu, and Vasishtha; and the generation of these individuals, a3 there given, is very different from what it isin any of the accounts rendered by Prof. Wilson. See Vishnu- purdna, p. 50, note. For instance, the first and the last four are derived, respectively, from Brahma’s prdna, uddna, vydna, apdna, and samdna. See, for these terms, Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol. I., pp. 356 and 374 ; also the Sénkhya-kérikd, p. 103. At X., 84, of the same section, the whole eleven are denominated Brahmas; and Brahmi is stated to have ercated them by his power as a Yogi. Sce, also, Vishnupurdva, p. 49, Further particulars of interest occur at X., 122—125, of the latter section of the Ktirma-purdpa. Sanat-kumira is here said to have instructed Sam- varta; and he, Satyavrata: Sanandana, Pulaha; and he, Gautama: Angiras, Bharadwaja: Kapila, Jaigishavya and Panchas‘ikha: Sanaka, Pards’ara ; and he, Valmiki. This Purana is related, at its conclusion, to have been transmitted from Brahmé as follows. Brabmaé communicated it to Sanaka and Sanat-kumara; Sanaka, to Devala; Devala, to Panchas‘ikha; and Sanat- kumara, to Vyasa. There is, clearly, no countenance, in the analogy of the Hindu hagiogony, for the else plausible surmise, that a complete history of the mdnasa sons of Brahma, 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. * Mahdbhérata, IIL, 1896 and 8880. Rédmédyana, I., 41,2—4 and 25. At I., 41, 2—4, Kapila’s destruction of the sons of Sagara is predicted. Padma- puréna,, latter section, Vishnu-v yiha-bheda-varnana chapter. Vishnu-purd- “na, p. 377. Bhéyavata-purana, L., 3, 11; where Kapila 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 Devahiti ;* 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 nS ie le the Mahdbhdrata, XIII., 7006, with S‘ankara A’charya’s commentary. See, further, the passage at p. 10, supra, quoted in Vyasa’s Pdtanjala-bhdshya. The later commentators on this work, Vijnana Bhikshu and Nigoji Bhatta, understand the word ddi-vidwdn, or ‘primeval sage,’ to mean, here, Vishnu.