English
The most remarkable characteristic of this theory consists in the exotic innovation of doing away with the ultimate resolution into the primal cause, of matter and all subaltern forms of intelligence. The diverse allotment, to different mortals, of mundane fruition, in the case of original appearances 25 to precision, which could scarcely fail to weigh gravely with the other ; and, if acceptable in the gross, it might easily be entrusted to the casual care of expositors, for the redress of its laxities. As for ‘the second, on the other hand, as anticipating every species of opposition, its compiler would industriously labour to-diminish the chances of conflict, by, first of all, studying to avoid ambiguity ; and, further, the proselyte to a new belief would naturally be solicitous for a precise enunciation of the tenets he had received in return for those he had discarded. Accordingly, though the aphorisms of the Veddnta may have been posterior to those of the Sinkhya, there seems good reason why the first should not have striven so strenuously as the other, against the hazard of misconstruction. That the latter is by no means so capable of various interpretation as the former, is incontestable. That it would prove to be so, might, perhaps, even be argued from the consideration that the Sankhya has never, within historical knowledge, lapsed from unity; whereas on the stage of life, is referred, by it, to the influence of the face of the horoscope at_conception and birth, The preeminently devout are, at death, “translated to a place of bliss, and are thenceforth exempt from earthly vicis- situdes, Ignorant evil-docrs are consigned, by divine messengers, to a region which is vaguely said to be inferior to paradise ; and their resurrection in this world, or other subsequent change of state, appears to be unprovided for. Conscious transgressors are tormented in the flames of Tartarus, till the beginning of a new cycle; and are then reendued with their former bodies. With these persons, the deeds of the past life have, declaredly, a retributive efficacy. Such as presumptuously pretend to oneness with the Deity,—by whom the Vedintis are plainly signified,—suffer, in their subtile frames, the dolors of perdition, till the end of the current day of Brahma; and are then ejected from their gross corporeal investments. This last expression is unintelligible; and the text is, here, very likely, adulterated. Mis’ra, on the representation of his critic, lays claim to one or more Upanishads, a Purana, and the Udas‘ardva-brdéhmana, as lending colour to his sentiments, Two branches from his proper school are hinted at; their deviation from the heresiarch being intimated to hinge on the nature of the godhead, Nilakantha truculently retaliates the severity of Mis’ra to- E 26 the Vedanta has notoriously ramified into several distinct and irreconcilable denominations.* As already remarked, besides the book of aphorisms just dis- wards Vedintis, by denying to him and to his followers, every prospect of reaching the sphere of Brabmé. He refuses them fellowship with the Hindu communion ; and reviles them, under the epithet of ‘ brutes of the Lord,’ for impiously maintainiug that celestial blessedness is attended with a sense of selfhood. The bare title of Mis’ra igs usually appropriated, I learn, to Vachaspati ‘> Mis‘ra the jurist. Here, however, it may, possibly, designate the elder writer of the same name, the pneumatologist. As conducing to sustain this conjecture, I may mention a rumour, prevalent among the learned Ilindus of Central India, that this writer, late in life, put forth a disquisition, believed to have perished, on incognisable matters generally; in which, no doubt scandalizing the conservatism of his age, he evinced a marked disposition to think, within limits, for himself. At all events, the origination, on Indian soil, of a system that strikes at the very root of pantheism, is a phenomenon well + worthy of remark. It may, indced, almost be taken to imply an acquaint- ance with some religion of the West; though, in teaching that creation, sentient and inert, proceeds from the Deity as a seed, it is evident that Mis’ra had not risen to the Christian and Muhammadan dogma of genesis 5 without a material cause. His implied restriction to the human species, of a future life, is, also, a striking reduction of the range accorded, by most oriental nations, to the economy of metempsychosis. Of Nilakantha’s Shaf-tantrt-séra I have been able to procure only the fourth and last chapter, and but a single copy of this fragment. The trea- tise is in verse, with a prose paraphrase and a commentary; the whole by the same author. It is said to have been written within the last century and a half. * Notwithstanding their fundamental disparity, a general similitude per- vades the Sankhya and the Yoga. In some of the earliest authorities they are, alse, repeatedly mentioned in combination. Their interdependence, likewise, is incontrovertible. That_ the Yoga implies _the existence oft the Sankhya, does not require to be proved; aid a reference to the Sénkhya- sutra a equally discovers that it contemplates not a few of the fanatical notions and practices detailed in the aphorisms of the Yoga. It may, therefore, not unreasonably be concluded that the Sankhya and the Yoga, whatever their era, or the age of theiv supposed earlicst text-books, werg-of nearly con- temporaneous origin, = 27 missed, a scanty index* to the topics of the Sdéukhya, entitled Tattwu-samdsa, is referred to Kapila. The articles that make * The distribution of the Sdnkhya system into twenty-five cardinal prin- - ciples,—namely, eight producers, sixteen productions, and spirit,—is as old as the Mahdbhérata. See foot-notes to pp. 2 and 6, supra. The crazy digest of these principles, laid down in the Bhdégavata-purdna, LII., 26, 10 seqq., argues forcibly the recent origin of this crude farrago. The topies of the Sankhya, as diversely exhibited in the several editions of the Tattwa-samdsa, will reccive full attention presently. But another classification of these topics, which computes them at sixty, is propounded in the commentaries on the Zuttwa-samésa, and in the Rdja-vdrtika as quoted in the Sdukhya-kaumudi and Sarvopakdrini. The passage from the Rdja-vértika runs as follows : Wrafqaaaanyraayryad | way | aaaad fra dra way weefacadd Fifeare gat <ul faqag: vefawaeat wa gee i SCUAATAwaTtanfayl waa | fa sie: qerdraraarta oe fafate 1 Fifty of these topics, the ‘ intellectual creation,’ offer no difficulty, at least in the immediate subdivisions of this aggregate. These are: the tive spe- cies of obstruction, the nine of acquiescence, the twenty-eight of disability in the organs, and the eight of perfection. The remaining ten are: (1) the existence, (2) the simplicity, (3) the objectivencss, and (4) the subservience, of nature; (6) the distinctness, (6) the multcity, and (7) the passiveness, of spirit; (8) the disjunction of nature from spirit, (9) the conjunction of nature with spirit ; and (10) the continuance of the body after the acqui- sition of saving knowledge. Prof. Wilson—-Sdnkhya-kériké, pp. 191-2—completes, in some sort, ‘this set of ten ‘radical facts;’ but only by copying Vichaspati where he sup- plements the text, and by misunderstanding him both there and elsewhere. Vachaspati counects ‘ existence’ with both ‘ spirit’ and ‘ nature ;’ and yet ‘in order to make but one category of the whole, namely, -‘ the existence of spirit and nature.’ Prof. Wilson makes two: “ existence of soul” and “existence of nature.” Again, Vichaspati explains s‘esha-vritti, by sthité, which he refers to sthila and siikshma. Prof. Wilson, dividing, as before, gives two categories, “ duration of subtile” and ‘“ that of gross.” Viyoge and yoga are Icft, by Vachaspati, unexplained, as being too obvious to demand elucidation. Prof. Wilson throws them out altogether. E 2 28 up this jejunc catalogue, are misuamed sitras ;* and their number, as fixed by different commentators, ranges from twenty- two to twenty-five. On the strength of internal evidence, their \, posteriority to the larger aphoristic treatise is scarcely matter ——— 1. The commentaries on the Tattwa-samdsa cite the ensuing couplet for an enumeration of the ten radical facts : efananaaqMay WUgayaTRea FI art faa awa: yas: fate Wace gy WIEtH I The term astitwa ‘ existence,’ here used, is explained by the other commentators as it is by Vachaspati. Vis‘esha-vyittik is, in some MSS., substituted for cha s’esha-vrittih. [ts import is represented as above. Sce, regarding it, the sixty-seventh 4d77ké of I's'wara Krishna. In an anonymous marginal note to one of my MSS. of the Sdnkhya- kdrikd, I have found the verses given above from the Rdja-vértika, with the following stanza in place of their first couplet and a half: Tea Tara PECS HTT AMT | aaratatsd wei Biferaren: WaT SKM Here the fundamental categories are: (1) spirit, (2) nature, (3) intelli- gence, (4) egotism, (5-7) the three qualities, (8) the subtile elements, (9) the organs, (10) the gross elements. See, also, the Sénkhya-kérikd, p. 192, * The Sarvopakérint commentary counts but rents tos as follows: Get THTA WY Stem feared ed Grae GawsyT Vet sfawat: bw waa ¢ Ul ufaaTa | © tl ufueaa | all warfu- qar rel ve WAATTA? ft Xe Ul qe STG: WLLL TS BATA: We ll sar atfag WAX wafsufaural o ee a wat gfe: u qu Be- ut fata: UX 0 ew aoa kt Vol Gaqreea: ata ageatadT yaaa: Ven fataar Aaa (| ROT fafaay are: 1 Run fad sar wa WRN RAS Se AA | CAA VAM WET SAA: ATL A qafa- | fatter Bertiuy | The topic traigunya-sanchara is given as two, in all the other commen- taries.