English
* Its fourth book is chiefly made up of proverbial sayings and brief hints of ee Mistaken as Vijnana probably is, in arguing that the Tattwa-samdsa not only preceded the Sdnkhya-siitra, but formed its germ, there is no round ip mistrust his etymological analysis of ‘the word pravachana as hee used. At p. 7 of the present work, he explains it by prakarshena nirvachanam ‘detailed exposition ;’ nnd, at p. 110, by prapancha ‘explication.’ Its im- port is, therefore, interpretation. Vijnina, in the Pdtanjala-bhiéshya-vdrtika, lst adhyéya, ad fin., again defines the term sdnkhya-pravachana—as the proper name, according to Vyasa, of the Yoga Aphorisms—by words expressing ‘detailed exposition :’ Wea Cia | MSGUIKII waaay aya qrearaqaa: Nigoji Bhatta, in his Pdtanjala-siitra-vritti-bhéshya-chchhdyd-vyékhyd, silently tran- scribes Vijndna’s derivation: Taq WSQMIIGTS F VS SAAT TAIT aqarTa | HadsM. Saint-Hilaire not permitted his dependence on Colebrooke to su- persede reference to Vijnana, he would have found that, on the statement of the latter, the Sénkhya-pravachana came after the Tattwa-samdsa ; and that ~ peither of them is described as standing to the other in a relation similar to that of prefuce. Further on I shall take up this point again. * That is to say, in the six books, 164, 47, 84, 32, 129, and 70, respec- tively. As for this enumeration, even if it had not the support, by express. declaration, 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 Vijnana’s commentary and of Nagoji Bhatta’s abstract of it, that I have collated. Aniruddha, and his epitomist Mahideva, of whose works such MSS. as I have examined likewise have the aphorisms numbered, concur, essentially, 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 pre- sent publication, and p. 33 of its appendix. M. Saint-Hilaire, precipitately accepting, without diplomatic verification, the Serampore edition of Vijnina’s commentary, and unvisited by any the least 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 le Sankhya, p. 6. The consequence, to his.essay, of this want of cireum- spection and research, is not very advantageous. Neither need one be sur- 22 legends, illustrative of Sinkhya 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 Vijndua, he should write thus. “Tsvara Krishna, imbu des opinions de son temps, aurait pu préter a Kapila 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 kdrikd 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 Sinkhya, as stated in the 4th kdrikd. I., 118, which is in the same predicament with the aphorism last named. forms part of the 9th kaviké. L, 141, similarly circumstanced, may be found embodied in the 17th kérikéd. I., 162, which is given as commentary, upholds the 62d kérikd. M. Saint-Hilaire would have quoted II., 28, after the 28th kdrikd, 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 Adrikd receives support from III., 43, which is, likewise, dis- guised by small type. Commenting on the 54th kdrikd, M. Saint-Hilaire employs language which significantly implies the entire and unquestioning reliance on the old edition of Vijnana, which has above been alleged of him. Ilis words are as follows: “ Lecture 3, softra 44 [48]: ‘En haut, il y a prédominance de la bonté.’ “ Kapila ne va pas plus loin; et aprés avoir indiqué, comme on l’a vu, existence des trois mondes en n’ indiquant que le monde des dieux od régne la bonté, il ne dit point quelle qualité prédomine dans les mondes qui vien- nent aprés celui-la. [1 est probable que la Karika, en faisant prédominer Vobscurité dans le monde inférieur, et le mal dans le monde du milieu, se conforme a une tradition dés longtemps regue; mais, dans les axiomes du maitre, ce complément & peu prés indispensable de sa pensée n’ apparalt pas’ et il n’en a rien exprimé, pas méme par une de ces réticences qui lui sont si habituelles. Il faut ajouter que le commentateur des Sofitras, Vidjnina Bhikshou, ne s’est pas arrété d’avantage a Ia doctrine que nous retrouvons 23 addition to its special section of controversy, it, also, here and there, prefers in direct terms, or else darkly points to, exceptions Uans la Kiarika, et qu’a la suite de Kapila il 2 omis de parler des deux autres mondes, placés au-dessous du monde supérieur. Il se borne & dire que par ‘en haut’ Kapila 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 Vijnana, at once accounts for several items of the 64th Aériké, and completely frustrates the criticism, just quoted, which our essayist ventures. IIL, 53, which is reduced to commentary, is repeated, mostly, in the 55th kérikd, To illustrate the 68th kdrikd, M. Saint-Hilaire cites, instead of IIL, 56, which is omitted, the explanatory expansion of it. * Colebrooke a fait remarquer (Essays, tom. I., page 232) que les Sodtras attribués & Kapila mentionnaient le nom de Pantchasikha. Le fait est exact, et Colebrooke en tirait cette double conséquence: d’abord, que les Softras n’étaient pas de Kapila lui-mémne, car il n’aurait pas cité le nom de son dlis- ciple; et, en second lieu, qu’ il y avait pour le Sinkhya des sutorités anté- rieures aux Sofitras, puisqu’ils invoquaient eux-mémes le témoignage d’un maitre plus ancien qu’ eux. J’ admets les deux conséquences signalées par Colebrooke. Mais il aurait dQ ajouter que la citation rapportée par lui se trouve dans l’avant-dernier sofitra de tout le systéme. (Lecture 6, soitra 68). A’ cette place, les interpolations ont été plus faciles certainement que dans le corps méme de l’exposition, et il est fort possible qu’une maip étrangére ait glissé celle-ci a la fin de Pouvrage. 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 doc- trines.””? Premier Mémoire, &c., pp. 253, 254. Now, in the first place, the suggestion broached by M. Saint-Hilaire, that VI, 68, as being the penultimate aphorism of the Sénkhya-sitra, 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 Sanandaua,—VI., 69 ;—which, in bis reading of Vijndna, is consigned ¢o the notes. Again, both he and Colebrooke failed to observe V., 32, which, likewise, in Vijnana, 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 Sénkhya 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 siétras 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 repre- sent 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 al- ready. See above, pp. 10, 11. Once more, our essayist would, in expounding the 57th kdriké, have cited VL, 40, had it not, in the old edition of Vijnana, been accounted exposi- torial; a part of the introduction to it being, there, put in its place. * Nilakantha Chaturdhara, in his Shat-tuntri-séra, enumerates, as dstika or orthodox systems of philosophy, the Mimdnsé, Tarka, and Vedénta ; and, as ndstika or heterodox, the’ Charvdka, ta, Saugata, and Arhata. The Tarka, of the first class, he subdivides into the he Sénkhya, Pétanjala, V Vais‘eshika, and Nydya ; ; and the Saugata, of the second d class, into the Sautréntika, Vaibha- shika, Yogdchéra, and Mddhyamika. Proceeding to” particulars, this writer gives some account of a singular theory, additional to those above named, by one Mis‘ra. As never having been alluded to by any European writer, it may be thought not undeserving of a summary note.