Sutras which they intend to explain, would remain unchanged, engraved on the memory of teachers and pupils. How tenacious that philosophical Paramparâ was we can see from the pregnant fact that the Âkhyâyikâs or stories, though left out in the Kârikâs, must surely have existed both before and after the time of Îsvara-Krishna, for though absent in the Tattva-samâsa and in the Kârikâs, they reappear in our Sâmkhya-Sutras. Where were they during the interval if not in Sûtras or Kârikâs, now lost to us? The commentary on the Tattva-samâsa, the publication of which we owe to Ballantyne, begins with an introduction which sounds, no doubt, like a late tradition, but reminds us in some respects of the dialogue at the beginning of the Chinese translation of the commentary on the Sâmkhya-kârikâs. But though it may sound like a late tradition, it would be very difficult to prove that it was so. Chronology is not a matter of taste that can be settled by mere impressions. A certain Brâhman, we are told, overcome by the three kinds of pain, took refuge with the great Rishi Kapila, the teacher (not necessarily the originator) of the Sâmkhya', and having declared his family, his name, and his clan in order to become his pupil, he said: 'Reverend Sir, What is here on earth the highest (the summum bonum)? What is truth? What must I do to be saved?' Kapila said, 'I shall tell thee.' Then follow the topics which are twenty-five in number: 1 In the Bhagavata-purâna I, 3, 11, Kapila is said to have revived the Sâmkhya (Sâmkhya-Sâra, ed. Hall, p. 7, note). List of Twenty-five Tattvas. I. The eight Prakritis (primary and productive elements), 1. The Prakriti as Avyakta (the non-dif- II. The sixteen Vikâras (modifications), 14-18. The five Karmendriyas (active 19. Manas (central organ or mind); 20-24. The Mahâbhûtas (material ele- III. 25. The Purusha (Spirit or Self). IV. The Traigunya (triad of forces). VII. The Adhyatma IX. The Adhidaivata The twenty-five Tattvas. referring to the thirteen instruments, i. e. to Buddhi, Ahamkâra, Manas, and the ten Indriyas. X. The five Abhibuddhis (apprehensions), five acts of Buddhi or the Indriyas. XI. The five Karmayonis (sources of activity). XIII. The five Karmâtmans, kinds of Ahamkâra. XIV. Avidya (Nescience), fivefold, with sixty-two subdivisions. XV. Asakti (weakness), twenty-eightfold (nine Atushtis and eight Asiddhis). XVI. Tushti (contentment), ninefold. XXI. Bandha (bondage), threefold. I have given these titles or headings in Sanskrit, and shall often have to use these Sanskrit terms, because their English equivalents, even when they can be found, are too often unintelligible or misleading without a commentary. This commentary which follows immediately on the Sûtra, is meant to elucidate their meaning, and it does so on the whole satisfactorily, but the English word seems never to square the Sanskrit terms quite accurately. The commentator begins by asking, 'Now what are the eight Prakritis?' and he answers, again in technical terms which will have to be explained : I. 1. The Avyakta (chaos), 2. Buddhi (light or perception), 3. Ahamkâra (subjectivity), and 4-8, the five Tanmâtras (transcendental elements).' The Avyakta. He then continues: 1. Here then the Avyakta, neuter (the undeveloped), is explained. As in the Y world various objects such as water-jars, cloth, vases, beds, &c., are manifest, not so is the Avyakta manifest. It is not apprehended by the senses, such as the ear, &c. And why? Because it has neither beginning, middle, nor end, nor has it any parts. It is inaudible, intangible, invisible, indestructible, eternal, without savour and odour. The learned declare it to be without beginning and middle, to be beyond what is great 1, unchanging, pre-eminent. And again, this Avyakta is subtle, without attributes, without beginning or end, producing (Prasûta), but alone of all the eight Prakritis unproduced (Aprasûta), without parts, one only, but common to all. And these are its synonyms, that is to say, words applicable to the Avyakta, under certain circumstances: Pradhâna (principal), Brahman2, Pura (abode), Dhruva (unchanging), Pradhânaka (chief), Akshara (indestructible), Kshetra (field, object), Tamas (darkness), Prasûta (productive).' Buddhi. 2. 'And what is called Buddhi (intellect)? Buddhi is Adhyavasaya (ascertainment). It is that through which there is in regard to a cow, &c., the conviction (Pratipatti), "This is so and so, not otherwise, this is a cow, not a horse; this is a post, not a man.” 1 Mahat in the sense of mind, and Pradhâna in the sense of nature, seem hardly to be appropriate here. 2 Brahman seems out of place here, and to be synonymous with Purusha or Atman rather than with the Avyakta. It is given as a synonym of Purusha further on, but strictly speaking Prakriti also would, from a Vedantic point of view, fall to Brahman as being what is called the substantial cause of the world, but of an immaterial world, as it would seem. Such is Buddhi, the most wonderful phase of Prakriti.' Buddhi is generally taken here in its subjective or psychological sense, but whatever native and European authorities may have to say, it is impossible that this should have been its original meaning in the mind of Kapila. If Buddhi meant only determination (Adhyavasâya), even in its widest sense, it would clearly presuppose the later phases, not only Ahamkâra, Manas, Indriyas, as subjective, but likewise something that is knowable and determinable, such as Mahâbhûtas, or at least Tanmâtras. Though this psychological acceptation is the common acceptation of Buddhi among native writers on Sâmkhya, yet sense is more important than commentaries. The Buddhi or the Mahat must here be a phase in the cosmic growth of the universe, like Prakriti in the beginning, and the senses and the other organs of the soul; and however violent our proceeding may seem, we can hardly help taking this Great Principle, the Mahat, in a cosmic sense. Now the first step after Avyakta, the undeveloped, dull, and as yet senseless Prakriti, can only be Prakriti as lighted up, as rendered capable of perception, and no longer as dull matter. If taken in a psychological sense, it supplies, no doubt, in a later stage, the possibility of individual perception also, or of the determination of this and that. But originally it must have been. meant as Prakriti illuminated and intellectualised, and rendered capable of becoming at a later time the germ of Ahamkâra (distinction of subject and object), Manas, mind, and Indriyas, apprehensive senses. Only after Prakriti has become lighted up or perceptive, only after mere material contact has become conscious |