nor are they always used in the same sense or in the same order by earlier and later authorities.

Thus we read in the Kâthaka Up. III, 10, 11:

'Beyond the senses are the objects (Artha), beyond the objects is the mind (Manas), beyond the mind is intellect (Buddhi), the Great Self (Mahân Âtmâ) is beyond the intellect. Beyond the Great there is the Undeveloped (Avyakta), beyond the undeveloped there is the Purusha. Beyond the Purusha there is nothing, that is the goal, the highest point.' In the same Upanishad, VI, 7, 8, we read :—

'Beyond the senses is the mind, beyond the mind the highest being (Sattvam Uttamam), higher than that being is the great Self (Mahân Âtmâ), beyond this great (Self) is the highest, the Undeveloped.

Beyond the Undeveloped is the Purusha, the all-pervading and imperceptible. Every creature that knows him is liberated, and obtains immortality.'

The successive development, as here described, is not in strict accordance with the systematic Sâmkhya, but still less does it represent to us Vedantic ideas. Even the two accounts, as given in the same Upanishad, vary slightly, showing to us how little of technical accuracy there was as yet during the Upanishad-period. We get

The omission of the Arthas as objects would not signify, because, as Indriyârthas, they are implied by the Indriyas or senses. But why should Buddhi, generally the first emanation of Prakriti in its undeveloped (Avyakta) state, be replaced by Sattvam Uttamam, the Highest Being? The word may be meant for Buddhi, for Buddhi is often called Mahat, the Great, but why it should be called Great is difficult to say. It is certainly not an equivalent of the Phenician Mot, as Professor Wilson conjectured many years ago1. Mahân Atmâ looks like a Vedantic term, but even then it would only occupy the place of Givâtmâ, the individualised Self, and how could this be said to emanate from the Avyakta?

Another passage which reminds us of Sâmkhya rather than of Vedanta-philosophy occurs in the Maitrây. Up. II, 5, where we read: He who has the name of Purusha, and is very small, intangible, invisible, dwells of his own will here in part 3, as a man who is fast asleep awakes of his own will. And this part, which is entirely intelligent, present in every single man, knowing the body, attested by conceiving (Manas), willing (Buddhi), and belief in subject and object (Ahamkâra) is Pragâpati, called

See Sâmkhya-Sûtras I, 61, 71; the Ekâdasakam is Sattvikam, cf. II, 18, that is the five Buddhîndriyas, the five Karmendriyas, and the Manas; see Garbe, Sâmkhya-pravakanabhâshya, p. 188.

2 The Anubhûti-prakâsa reads Buddhipûrvam, Deussen translates Abuddhipûrvam.

3 As to the idea of parts (Amsa), see Vedanta-Sutras II, 3, 43, and Thibaut's remarks in his Introduction, p. xcvii.

Visva. By him, the intelligent, is the body made intelligent, and he is the driver thereof.'

This passage does not contain much of Sâmkhya thought, yet the words Purusha and possibly Buddhipurvam seem to allude to Kapila's ideas rather than to those of Bâdarayana. Other words also, such as Samkalpa, Adhyavasâya and Abhimâna, in the sense of Ahamkâra, point to the same source. The whole passage, however, is obscure, nor does the commentator help us much, unless he is right in recognising here the germs of the later Vedantic ideas of a Pragâpati, called Visva or Vaisvânara (Vedanta-sâra, § 138), Taigasa and Prâgña.

One more passage of the Maitrây. Upanishad, III, 2, may here be mentioned, as reminding us of Sâmkhya doctrines. There we read: 'There is indeed that other different one, called the elemental Self (Bhûtâtmâ) who, overcome by the bright and dark fruits of action, enters on a good or evil birth, so that his course is upward or downward, and that overpowered by the pairs (the opposites) he roams about. And this is the explanation. The five Tanmâtras (of sound, touch, light, taste, and smell) are called Bhúta (elements), and the five Mahâbhûtas (gross elements) also are called Bhûta. Then the aggregate of all these is called Sarîra, body, and he who dwells in that body is called Bhûtâtman (the elementary Âtman). True, his immortal Atman (Self) remains untainted, like a drop of water on a lotus-leaf; but he, the Bhûtâtman, is in the power of the Gunas of Prakriti. Then, thus overpowered, he becomes bewildered, and because thus bewildered, he sees not the creator, i. e. the holy Lord, abiding within him. Carried along by the Gunas, darkened,

unstable, fickle, crippled, full of devices, vacillating, he enters into Abhimâna (conceit of subject and object), believing "I am he, this is mine," &c. He binds himself by himself, as a bird is bound by a net, and, overcome afterwards by the fruits of what he has done, he enters on a good or evil birth, downward or upward in his course, and, overcome by the pairs, he roams about.'

Here we see again a mixture of Sâmkhya and Vedanta ideas, the Sâmkhya claiming such terms as Prakriti and Gunas, the Vedânta such terms as Âtman and possibly Bhûtâtman. This Bhûtâtman, however, is by no means so clear as has sometimes been imagined. It is a term peculiar to the Maitrây. Upanishad, and seems to have been borrowed from it when it occurs in some of the later Upanishads. If, like many other things in the Maitrây. Upanishad, it is to be looked upon as belonging to the Sâmkhyasystem, we must remember that Atman, though quoted sometimes as a synonym of Purusha, cannot be supposed to stand here for Purusha. A compound such as Bhûta-Purusha would be impossible. The Maitrây. Up. III, 1 itself says that the Atman of Bhûtâtman is another, though likewise called Âtman, and that he dwells in the body, Sarîra, which is a compound of Tanmâtras, Bhûtas, and Mahâbhutas. It would therefore correspond to the Vedantic Givâtman. But if this Bhûtâtman is said to spring from Prakriti, it could not possibly stand for the Purusha of the Sâmkhyas, because their Purusha does not spring from Prakriti, as little as Prakriti springs from him. Nor could any Âtman be said to be purely objective. In fact, strictly speaking, this Bhûtâtman fits neither into

the Vedanta, nor into the Sâmkhya-philosophy, and would rather seem to belong to a philosophy in which these two views of the world were not yet finally separated.

Another difficult and rather obscure expression in the Maitrây. Upanishad is Nirâtman (selbstlos), an expression which would be impossible in the Vedantaphilosophy, and is certainly perplexing even in the Samkhya.

A similar mixture of philosophical terms meets us in the Svetâsvatara Upanishad. In verse I, 10, for instance, we have Pradhâna, which is Sâmkhya, and Mâyâ, which is Vedanta, at least the later Vedanta, while in IV, 10 Mâyâ is directly identified with Prakriti. Purusha occurs in III, 12, where it evidently stands for Brahman, IV, 1. But though in this Upanishad Sâmkhya ideas would seem to prevail, Vedanta ideas are not excluded. The very name of Sâmkhya1 and Yoga occurs (VI, 13), but the name of Vedânta also is not absent, VI, 22. In all this we may possibly get a glimpse of a state of Indian philosophy which was, as yet, neither pure Sâmkhya nor pure Vedanta, unless we look on these Upanishads as of a far more modern date, and on their philosophy as the result of a later syncretism.

IV. If now we we meet first of

Traigunya.

return to the Tattva-samâsa, all with some more remarks

about the three Gunas, Sattva, explained as

1

Sâmkhya should be here taken as the title of the two systems, Sâmkhya and Yoga, or better still as one word, Samkhyayoga. It cannot well mean Prüfung.