scholar in India, which might have deceived many a European scholar of Sanskrit literature1. If that is possible now, if, as in the case of the KapilaSûtras, it was possible in the fourteenth century, why should not the same have taken place during the period of the Renaissance in India, nay even at an earlier time? At all events, though grateful for what has been preserved, and preserved in what may seem to us an almost miraculous manner, we should not imagine that we possess all, or that we possess what we possess in its original form.

Books of Reference.

I shall mention here some of the most important works only, from which students of philosophy, particularly those ignorant of Sanskrit, may gain by themselves a knowledge of the six recognised systems of Indian Philosophy. The titles of the more important of the original Sanskrit texts may be found in Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays, vol. ii, p. 239 seq., and in the Catalogues, published since his time, of the various collections of Sanskrit MSS. in Europe and India.

For the Vedanta-philosophy of Bâdarâyana the most useful book is Thibaut's English translation of the text of the Sûtras and Samkara's commentary in the S. B. E., vols. xxxiv and xxxviii.

Of books written in German, Deussen's translation of the same work, 1887, preceded as it was by his

1

It is called Katantrakkhandahprakriyâ by Kandrakanta Tarkâlankara, 1896, and gives additional Sûtras to the Katantra on Vedic Grammar. He makes no secret that Sûtram vrittis kobhayam api mayaiva vyarâki, 'the Sûtra and the commentary, both were composed by me.'

'System des Vedanta,' 1883, can be thoroughly recommended.

Of the Sâmkhya-system we have the Sûtras translated by Ballantyne in 1882-1885, the Aphorisms of the Sâmkhya Philosophy of Kapila, with illustrative extracts from the Commentaries, 1852, 1865, 1885.

In German we have the Sâmkhya-PravakanaBhashya, Vigñâna-bhikshu's Commentar zu den Sâmkhya-Sutras, übersetzt von R. Garbe, 1889. Also Aniruddha's Commentary and the original parts of Vedantin Mahâdeva's commentary on the Sâmkhya-Sutras, by Richard Garbe, 1892.

Der Mondschein der Sâmkhya Wahrheit, Vâkaspatimisra's Sâmkhya-tattva-kaumudi, übersetzt von R. Garbe, 1892, is also a very useful work.

The Sámkhya Káriká by Íswarakrishna, translated from the Sanscrit by H. T. Colebrooke, also the Bhashya or commentary by Gaurapáda; translated and illustrated by an original comment by H. H. Wilson, Oxford, 1837, may still be consulted with advantage.

Other useful works are:

John Davies, Hindu Philosophy. The Sankhya Kārikā of Iswarakrishna, London, 1881.

Die Sâmkhya-Philosophie, nach den Quellen, von R. Garbe, 1894.

Of the Purva-Mîmâmsâ or simply Mîmâmsâ, which deals chiefly with the nature and authority of the Veda with special reference to sacrificial and other duties, we have the Sûtras with Sabarasvâmin's commentary published in the original; but there is as yet no book in English in which that system may be studied, except Professor Thibaut's translation of

Laugâkshi Bhaskara's Arthasamgraha, a short abstract of that philosophy, published in the Benares Sanskrit Series, No. 4.

The Vaiseshika system of philosophy may be studied in an English translation of its Sûtras by A. E. Gough, Benares, 1873; also in a German translation by Roer, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vols. 21 and 22, and in some articles of mine in the same Journal of the German Oriental Society, 1849.

The Nyâya-Sutras of Gotama have been translated, with the exception of the last book, by Ballantyne, Allahabad, 1850-57.

The Yoga-Sutras are accessible in an English translation by Rájendralála Mitra, in the Bibliotheca Indica, Nos. 462, 478, 482, 491, and 492.

Dates of the Philosophical Sûtras.

If we consider the state of philosophical thought in India such as it is represented to us in the Brahmanas and Upanishads, and afterwards in the canonical books of the Buddhists, we cannot wonder that all attempts at fixing the dates of the six recognised systems of philosophy, nay even their mutual relationship, should hitherto have failed. It is true that Buddhism and Gainism were likewise but two philosophical systems out of many, and that it has been possible to fix their dates. But if in their case we know something about their dates and their historical development, this is chiefly due to the social and political importance which they acquired during the fifth, the fourth, and the third centuries B. C., and not simply to their philosophical tenets. We know also that there were many teachers, con

temporaries of Buddha, but they have left no traces in the literary history of India.

Nor should we forget that, though the date of the Buddhist Canon may be fixed, the date of many of the texts which we now possess and accept as canonical is by no means beyond the reach of doubt.

In the Buddhist annals themselves other teachers such as Gñâtiputra, the Nirgrantha, the founder of Gainism, Purana Kasyapa, Kakuda Kâtyâyana, Agita Kesakambali, Samgaya Vairatti-putra, Gosâliputra, the Maskarin, are mentioned by the side of Gautama, the prince of the clan of the Sâkyas. One of these only became known in history, Gñâtiputra, the Nirgrantha or gymnosophist, because the society founded by him, like the brotherhood founded by Buddha, developed into a powerful sect, the Gainas. Another, Gosâli with the bamboo stick, originally an Âgîvaka, then a follower of Mahâvîra, became likewise the founder of a sect of his own, which, however, has now disappeared1. Gñâtiputra or Nâtaputta was actually the senior of Buddha.

Though it seems likely that the founders of the six systems of philosophy, though not the authors of the Sûtras which we possess, belonged to the same period of philosophical and religious fermentation which gave rise to the first spreading of Buddha's doctrines in India, it is by no means clear that any of these systems, in their literary form, are presupposed by Buddhism. This is owing to the vagueness of the quotations which are hardly ever given verbatim. In India, during the mnemonic period of literature, the contents of a book may have become

'Kern, Buddhismus, I, p. 182.

considerably modified, while the title remained the same. Even at a much later time, when we see Bhartrihari (died 650 A.D.) referring to the Mîmâmsaka, Sâmkhya, and Vaiseshika Darsanas, we have no right to conclude that he knew these Darsanas exactly as we know them, though he may well have known these philosophies after they had assumed their systematic form. Again, when he quotes Naiyâyikas, it by no means follows that he knew our Gotama-Sutras, nor have we any right to say that our Gotama-Sutras existed in his time. It is possible, it is probable, but it is not certain. We must therefore be very careful not to rely too much on quotations from, or rather allusions to, other systems of philosophy.

Samkhya-Sutras.

The Sâmkhya-Sutras, as we possess them, are very chary of references. They clearly refer to Vaiseshika and Nyâya, when they examine the six categories of the former (V, 85) and the sixteen Padârthas of the latter (V, 86). Whenever they refer to the Anus or atoms, we know that they have the Vaiseshikaphilosophy in their minds; and once the Vaiseshikas are actually mentioned by name (I, 25). Sruti, which the Sâmkhyas were supposed to disregard, is very frequently appealed to, Smriti once (V, 123), and Vâmadeva, whose name occurs in both Sruti and Smriti, is mentioned as one who had obtained spiritual freedom. But of individual philosophers we meet only with Sanandana Âkârya (VI, 69) and Pañkasikha (V, 32; VI, 68), while the teachers, the Âkâryas, when mentioned in general, are explained as comprehending Kapila himself, as well as others.