English
It is only by this bisection that the Sdénkhya-sitra-vivarana differs from the Sarvopakérint ; and thus exhibits twenty-three so-called sztras. The Sdéukhya-krama-dipiké recites, at its commencement, twenty-five topics ; but by obvious error; as it rednecs them to twenty-four, by foregoing all exposition of the words trividho dhé{u-sargah, which occur after the topic given above as the nineteenth. The MS. from which Dr. r, Ballanty ne printed the work in question, seems to be peculiar in reading “trividho dhétu-sane X\ 29 of uncertainty ;* and they add nothing to our knowledge of Kapila’s system, except in having elicited annotations which lay- sargah. In the preface to the Sdnkhya-tattwa-vildsa, where the Tattwa- samdsa is quoted, as if from the Sdnkhya-krama-dipiké, and briefly ex- plained, the expression trévidho dhétu-sargak is explained by the words vdta-pitta-kapha-bhedét_trividhah, as intending the assemblage of wind, choler, and phlegm. Colebrooke, by the way, translating from Jagannatha Tarkapanchanana, mistakes in construing the term dhdtu-vaishamya by ** pernicious power of mineral drugs.”’ Digest of Hindu Law, &c., Vol. IIL, p. 304: 8vo. ed. Cf. Colebrooke’s Two Treatises on the Hindu Law of Inheritance, p. 361, para. 2. The exact equivalent is, in our antique medical nomenclature, ‘distemper of the humours.’ The Hindu physio- logy reckons the humours at three only. The Sdukhya-krama-dipiké gives, after no. 22 as above, the words trivi- dham duhkham, as a topic. The reading of the Zattwa-ydéthérthya-dipana corresponds to that of the Sdnkhya-krama-dipikd, barring its rejection of érividho, &c., and its con- sidering the words etad ydthdtathyam as a topic; thus actually giving twenty-five as the total, Ksheminanda, in his annotations on the Tattwa-samdsa, states that it con~ tains twenty-five topics: but he enumerates only twenty-four; his text being, as far as the words efad ydéihdtathyam, identical with that of the Tattwa-ydthdérthya-dipana. The Tattwa-samdsa is generally found appended to Vedanti Mahideva’s Sdnkhya-vyitti-séra, and according to the reading of the Sarvopakdrint, Mahadeva, however, perhaps for the sake of shortness, omits the two sentences by which the topics are usually followed. The eighth topic is read,'in the Sdnkhya-sitra-vivarana, adhidaivam cha ; and adhidaivatam cha, in the Sdukhya-krama-dipikd, in the Lattwa-ydthdr- thya-dipana, and in Kshemananda on the Tattwa-samdsa. The Sarvopakd- rint, in its seventeenth topic, is unique in preferring das’a to das’adhé. Of the Sdnkhya-krama-dipiké I have collated five MSS. * The anonymous author of the Sarvopakdriyé relates, as an ancient tradition, that Kapila the incarnation of Vishnu composed the Taztwa- samésa, and that, in aftertimes, another Kapila, a manifestation of the divi- nity of fire, put forth the larger Sankhya Aphorisms, of which the ‘ Com- pendium of Principles’ is the rudiment. The same tradition makes the doctrines of other, unnamed, philosophical schools, besides the Sinkhya, no less than the ‘ Collection of Six Books,’ to have sprung from the Zaltwa- . 30 under contribution sources presumed to be, in their integrity, no longer forthcoming. samdsa. These observations will be found, in the Sanskrit, m a foot-note to p. 18, supra. Vijnana Bhikshu says: ‘ If it be alleged that: the Tattwa-samdsa aphor- isms are simply recited in the Collection of Six Books, the answer is, that it is not so. There is no mere repetition among them; inasmuch as they are, respectively, concise and expanded. Hence, the appellation of Sénkhya- pravachana is appropriate for the Collection of Six Books, in like manner as it is for the Institute of the Yoga, The former embraces precisely a detailed exposition of the Tattwa-samdsa, the shorter Sinkhya Institute. There is this difference, however, that the Collection of Six Books only expands the subject-matter of the Tattwa-samdésa ; whereas the Institute of the Yoga avoids heir seeming deficiency, by expressly propounding God, whom both the other ‘works, by concession for sake of argument, deny.’ For the original of this extract, see page 7 of the present work. Our commentator, at p. 110, grows more confident ; passing from. the language of assumption, as it were, to that of positive assertion: ‘ This Institute, equally with that of the Yoga, as being o developement of the substance of the shorter Sinkhya Aphorisms, is designated Sdnkhya-prava- chana, or, Explication of the Sdnkhya.’ Colebrooke, having in view a portion, if not all, of these remarks, writes as follows: “ It appears, from the preface of the Kapila-bhdshya, that 2 more compendious tract, in the same form of siétras or aphorisms, bears the title of Tattwa-samdsa, and is ascribed to the same author, Kapila. The scholiast intimates that both are of equal authority, and in no respect discordant: one being a summary of the greater work, or clse this an amplification of the conciser one. The latter was probably the case; for there is much repetition in the Sdnkhya-pravachana. t ° ° eo ee 6 . e ° ° ry . eo 8 © . . . oe . . oe “ If the authority of the scholiast of Kapila may be trusted, the Tattwa- samdsa is the proper text of the Sdnkhya ; and its doctrine is more fully, but separately, set forth by the two ampler treatises entitled Sdxkhya-pra- vachana, which contain a fuller exposition of what had been there succinctly delivered.’ Miscell. Essays, Vol. 1, pp. 231, 232, Dr. Réoer,—Journal of the As. Soc. of Bengal for 1851, p. 402, note,— after citing the latter of the paragraphs given above, unaccountably adds : * but this is a misapprehension: the scholiast does only say: ‘ they are of equal authority, one being a summary of the greater work, or else this an 31 ~The commentaries on the Sdrkhya-sitra are as follows : I. The Aniruddha-vritti, by A Aniruddha* Of this author’s history I know nothing. Il. The Sdnkhya-vritti-sdra, by Mah&deva Saraswati,+ more sis eee amplification of the conciser one.’ ? On the contrary, as will have been scen, the scholiast allows no such alternative, and is responsible for only the second member of it. Colebrooke would seem to have misunderstood the word ubhayoh ; and he has, besides, made out Vijnina to be sclf-contradic- tory. At the same time, the clause to which Dr. Réer excepts, is almost a literal translation of Vijnina’s own words. M. Saint-Hilaire says, speaking of the Sankhya Aphorisms: “ Ce traité, quoique assez court, a été abrégé, dit-on, par Kapila, sous le titre de Tattva- Samilsa, c’est-a-dire, réduction substantielle du Sinkhya. Nous ne con- naissons ce dernier ouvrage que par les citations qu’en ont faites les com- mentateurs, et qu’a répétées Colebrooke d’aprés eux (Essays, tome I., p. 231). Premier Mémoire sur le Sankhya, p. 5. Here, again, Colebrooke is implicitly followed as translator of Vijnana ; at what cost, will already have appeared. Moreover, the phrase “reduction substantielle” scarcely answers to Tattwa-samdsa ; and Colebrooke would be explored in vain for a single quotation from the smaller treatise. Vijnana plainly rests the validity of adjudging the title of Sdnkhya-pra- vachana to the Sdukhya-sitra, on the ground that these aphorisms are an expansion of the Tattwa-samdsa; the Tattwa-samésa being, again, the embryo of another collection of aphorisms called Sdnkhya-pravachana,— those of the Yoga. But this derivation of the Yoga-siitra falls, in the first place, to be established; and, even if established, Vijnana would still require a fact or two more to help him fairly to his conclusion. It may be suspected that his sole foundation of fact, in the passage given at the outsct of this note, is the common application of the term Sdnkhya to the system called from Kapila and to that of the Yoga. * For evidence that Aniruddha was antecedent to Vijnana Bhikshu, see "the Appendix to this volume, pp. 3, 4, 8, 10, 31, 12. + Mahadeva is likewise author of a Vedanta treatise, the Tattwdénu- sandhdna. See my Catalogue of Sanskrit Books, &c., Vol. I, p.97. He has also written a commentary on the Amara-kos‘a, entitled Budha-mano- hara, Of this work I have one copy of the first two books, and another of the second only, The latest authority, of ascertained date, quoted in this fragment, is Raya Mukuta, who was employed on his commentary in the 32 commonly called Vedanti Mahadeva ; pupil of Swayamprakiés‘a Tirtha, This work embraces, besides an abridgement of the last, many original reflections by the epitomist. TII. The Sénkhya-pravachana-bhdshya, or Sdnkhya-bha- shya ;* by Vijnana Bhikshu: the work now published. IV. The Laghu-sdnkhya-sitra-vritti, or Laghu-sdnkhya- vritti; by Nagoji Bhatta, or Niges’a Bhatta Upaidhydya,t a Marahatt4, son of S’iva or Sad4-s'iva Bhatta and Sati, and pupil of Hari Dikshita. This is an abstract of the last. V. The Sdnkhya-taranga, by Vis'wes’waradatta Mis’ra, whose ascetic style was Deva Tirtha Sw4m{, but who was more generally known as K4shtha-jihwa.t This is a work of but little value. pesmi year 1431 of our era. See Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, Vol. IL., pp. 18, 553 or the Pada-chandriké, book I., chap. 1 sect. 4, on the 21st couplet. In the preface to the Budha-manohara, Mahadeva says that the surname of Vedantf was given to him by his preceptor. This person, who is variously named Swayamprakas’a Tirtha, Swayamprakds’a Saraswati, Swayampra- kis’4nanda Saraswati, and, perhaps, Swayamprakis’a Yati and Swayamprakis’a Yogindra, studied with Adwaiténanda Saraswati, and is a well-known writer on the Vedanta philosophy. See my Catalogue, &c., Vol. I., pp. 75, 76, 97, 111, 112, &e.