ness, can we imagine the distinction, whether general or individual, between subject and object (Ahamkâra), and their new relation as perceiver and perceived, as 'I' on one side and 'this' and 'that' on the other.

may

This may seem a very bold interpretation, and a complete forsaking of native guidance, but unless a more reasonable and intelligible account can be given of Buddhi, there seems no escape from it. What native interpreters have made of Buddhi be seen in all their commentaries, for instance, Vakaspati - Misra's commentary on Kârikâ 23: 'Every man uses first his external senses, then he considers (with the Manas), then he refers the various objects to his Ego (Ahamkâra), and lastly he decides with his Buddhi what to do.' This may be quite right in a later phase of the development of Prakriti, it cannot possibly be right as representing the first evolution of Prakriti from its chaotic state towards light and the possibility of perception. It could not be the antecedent of Ahamkâra, Manas, and even the Tanmâtras, if it were no more than the act of fixing this or that in thought. I am glad to find that Mr. S. C. Banerji on p. 146 of his work arrives at much the same conclusion.

There are eight manifestations of this Buddhi (intellect), (1) Dharma, virtue, (2) Gñâna, knowledge, (3) Vairagya, dispassionateness, (4) Aisvarya, superhuman power.

As each of these requires explanation, he explains them by a very favourite process, namely, by contrasting them with their opposites, and saying that (1) Dharma, virtue, is the opposite of Adharma, vice, and is enjoined by Sruti and Smriti, revelation and tradition. It is not opposed to, nay, it is in

harmony with, the practice of the best people, and has happiness for its outward mark.

(2) Gñâna or knowledge, the opposite of Agñâna or ignorance, is explained as the understanding of the twenty-five subjects (Tattvas), the states of thought (Bhâva), and the elements (Bhûta).

(3) Vairagya, dispassionateness, is the opposite of passion, and consists in not being dependent on or influenced by external objects, such as sound, &c.

(4) Aisvarya, superhuman power, is the opposite of powerlessness, and consists of the eight qualities such as Animan, extreme minuteness, i. e. being able to assume the smallest form and weight, &c.'

These four kinds of intellect (Buddhi) are classed as Sâttvika.

Their opposites are classed as Tâmasa, dark or bad.

Through virtue, as a means, there takes place going upward, through knowledge there arises liberation, through dispassionateness men are absorbed in Prakriti (Prakritilaya?), through superhuman power there comes unfettered movement.

Thus has Buddhi in its eight forms been described.

Synonyms of Buddhi are, Manas, mind, Mati, thought, Mahat, the great, Brahmâ 2, masc., Khyâti, discrimination, Pragñâ, wisdom, Sruti, inspiration,

1

These Aisvaryas are believed in by Sâmkhya and Yoga, and are acquired by Yogins by means of long and painful practices.

2 This also seems out of place here, unless the Sâmkhyas give their own meaning both to Brahman and Brahmâ. In later times Buddhi, taken collectively, becomes the Upâdhi or mental limitation of Brahmâ or Hiranyagarbha.

Dhriti, firmness, Pragñânasantati, continuity of thought, Smriti, memory, and Dhi, meditation.

It is quite clear that in all these explanations Buddhi is taken as intellect, and as personal intellect, and that the idea of a cosmic stage of intellectuality has been entirely forgotten. Thus only can we account for the statement that this Buddhi, if dominated by Sattva (Guna of purity), is said to assume the form (Rupa) of virtue, knowledge, dispassionateness, and superhuman powers, while, if dominated by Tamas (Guna of darkness), it takes the four opposite forms of vice, &c. How could this be possible before the distinction between subject and object has been realised by Ahamkâra, and before Buddhi has assumed the character of senseperception (Buddhîndriyâni)? We have, in fact, to read the Sâmkhya-philosophy in two texts, one, as it were, in the old uncial writing that shows forth here and there, giving the cosmic process, the other in the minuscule letters of a much later age, interpreted in a psychological or epistemological sense.

Ahamkåra.

3. Now, he asks, What is called Ahamkâra ? And he answers, 'It is Abhimâna, assumption or misconception, and this consists in the belief that I am in the sound, i. e. I hear, I feel, I see, I taste, and I smell, I am lord and rich, I am Îsvara, I enjoy, I am devoted to virtue, by me a man was slain, I shall be slain by powerful enemies, &c.'

Samkara in his commentary on the VedantaSûtras gives, though from a different point of view, some more instances, as when a man, because his wife and children are unhappy, imagines that he

is unhappy, or that he is stout, thin, or fair, that he stands, walks, or jumps, that he is dumb, impotent, deaf, blind, that he has desires, doubts, or fears, whereas all these things do not pertain to him at all, but to Prakriti only.

'Synonyms of Ahamkâra, or rather modifications of it, are Vaikârika, modifying, Taigasa, luminous, Bhûtâdi, the first of elements, Sânumâna, dependent on inference, Niranumâna, not dependent on inference.'

sense.

Here we must distinguish again between Ahamkâra, as a cosmic power, and Ahamkâra as a condition presupposed in any mental act of an individual thinker. Ahamkâra was so familiar in the sense of Egoism that, like Buddhi, it was taken in its ordinary rather than in its technical Sâmkhya I quite admit that this is a somewhat bold proceeding, but how to get without it at a proper understanding of the ancient Sâmkhya, the rival of the Vedanta, I cannot see. We must remember that Ahamkâra, whatever it may mean in later times, is in the Sâmkhya something developed out of primordial matter, after that matter has passed through Buddhi. Buddhi cannot really act without a distinction of the universe into subject and object, without the introduction of the Ego or I, which again is impossible without a Non-Ego, or something objective. After that only do we watch the development of what is objective in general into what is objectively this or that (the Tanmâtras). But while the creation of what is subjective and objective is the only possible meaning of the cosmic Ahamkâra, its psychological interpretation is far more easy. Thus we are told that there are three or four

modifications of the Ahamkâra, (1) the Vaikârika, dominated by the Sattva-guna, helps to do good works; (2) the Taigasa, dominated by the Ragasguna, helps to do evil works; (3) the Bhûtâdi, dominated by the Tamas-guna, helps to do hidden works; (4) the Sânumâna Ahamkâra is responsible for unintentional good; (5) the Niranumâna, for unintentional evil works. This division, though rather confused, shows at all events that the Ahamkâra is here treated as simply a moral agent, dominated by the Gunas, but no longer as a cosmic potentia. These five modes of Ahamkâra are spoken of as Karmâtmans also, i. e. the very essence of our acts, while in another place the Tattva-samâsa itself explains that Ahamkâra should be taken as an act of Buddhi directed towards the perception of the nature of what is Self (subjective) or Not-Self (objective). Though Ahamkâra means only the production of Ego, yet the production of Ego involves that of the Non-Ego, and thus divides the whole world into what is subjective and objective.

Five Tanmatras.

4-8. If it is asked, What are the five Tanmâtras (substances)? he answers, The five substances or essences as emanating from Ahamkâra, the essence of sound, contact, colour, savour, and odour.

The essences of sound are perceived in sounds only. Differences of sound, such as acute, grave, circumflexed, and the notes of the gamut, such as Shadga, C, Rishabha, D, Gândhâra, E, Madhyama, F, Pankama, G, Dhaivata, A, Nishada, B, are