parts would of course not be means of right knowledge, but the other and principal parts only, which are in harmony with Sruti and Smriti. Hence we see that in the Padma-Purâna fault is found with all systems except the Brahma-Mîmâmsâ and Yoga. Here we see God (Siva) saying to Pârvati :

Listen, O goddess, I shall in succession tell you the heretical theories by the mere hearing of which even sages lose their knowledge.

First of all, I myself have taught the Saiva, Pasupata and other systems, and afterwards others have been promulgated by Brâhmans, who were filled by my powers. Kanâda has promulgated the great Vaiseshika doctrine, Gautama the Nyâya, Kapila the Sâmkhya. The Brâhman Gaimini has composed a very large work of atheistic character, the first of the two Mîmâmsâs, which treat of the meaning of the Veda. Then, in order to destroy the demons, Dhishana (Brihaspati) propounded the altogether despicable Kârvâka system; and Vishnu, under the disguise of Buddha, propounded the erroneous Bauddha system which teaches that people are to go naked, and should wear blue or other coloured garments, while I myself, O goddess, under the disguise of a Brâhman (i.e. of Samkara) have taught in this Kali age the doctrine of illusion (Mâyâ) which is false and only a disguised Buddhism. It is spread far and wide in the world, and attributes a false meaning to the words of the Veda. In it it is said that all works should be relinquished, and after surrendering all works, complete inactivity is recommended.

I have taught in it the identity of the highest Self and the individual Self, and have represented

the highest form of Brahman as entirely free from qualities; and this in order to destroy the whole world in this Kali age. This extensive, non-Vedic, deceptive doctrine has been propounded by me, as if it presented the true meaning of the Veda, in order that all living things might perish.'

All this and more has been explained by me in the commentary on the Brahma-Mîmâmsâ, and it is wrong therefore to say of any of the admittedly orthodox systems of philosophy that it is not the means of right knowledge or that it is refuted by others. For in reality none of them is contradicted or refuted in what constitutes its own chief object.

But, if it be asked whether the Sâmkhya-philosophy has not likewise made a mere concession with regard to the multiplicity of souls, we answer decidedly, No. For on that point there is really no contradiction (between the two, Sâmkhya and Vedanta) because it is shown in the chapter which begins at Brahma-Sûtras II, 3, 43, and declares that the individual self is a part of the Highest Self, because the multiplicity is stated (in the Veda); that the Brahma-Mîmâmsâ also recognises a multiplicity of Atman. But that the individual souls, as conceived by the Sâmkhya, are Âtman is certainly denied by the Vedanta, for it follows from Sûtra IV, 1, 3: 'They know him and teach him as Âtman,' that to the Vedantins, from the standpoint of absolute truth, the highest soul only is Âtman. Nevertheless the Sâmkhya does not thereby lose its authoritative character, because it is not superseded by the Vedânta in what constitutes its own characteristic doctrine, namely that for the individual soul, the knowledge of its being different from everything else, constitutes

the true means of liberation. There is no contradiction therefore, because the concepts of the manifold Âtman and of the one Âtman, so well known from Veda and tradition, can be fully reconciled according as we take an empirical or metaphysical view, as has been explained by ourselves in the Commentary on the Brahma-Mîmâmsâ-Sapienti sat.”

I have given here this long extract from VigñânaBhikshu, though I have to confess that in several places the thread of the argument is difficult to follow, even after the care bestowed on disentangling it by Professor Garbe. Still, even as it is, it will be useful, I hope, as a good specimen of the Indian way of carrying on a philosophical controversy. Nay, in spite of all that has been said against VigñânaBhikshu, I cannot deny that to a certain extent he seems to me right in discerning a kind of unity behind the variety of the various philosophical systems, each being regarded as a step towards the highest and final truth. He certainly helps us to understand how it came to pass that the followers of systems which to our mind seem directly opposed to each other on very important points, managed to keep peace with each other and with the Veda, the highest authority in all matters religious, philosophical and moral. The idea that the largely accepted interpretation of the VedantaSutras by Samkara was a perversion of the Veda and of Bâdarâyana's Sûtras, not much better than Buddhism, nay that Buddhism was the work of Vishnu, intended for the destruction of unbelievers, is very extraordinary, and evidently of late origin. Nay, nothing seems to me to show better that these Purânas, in the form in which we possess them, are

of recent origin, and certainly not the outcome of period previous to the Renaissance of Sanskrit literature, than passages like those quoted by Vigñâna-Bhikshu, representing the gods of the modern Hindu pantheon as interfering with the ancient philosophy of India, and propounding views which they know to be erroneous with the intention of deceiving mankind. Whatever the age of our philosophical Sutras may be, and some of them, in the form in which we possess them, are certainly more modern than our Purânas, yet the tradition or Paramparâ which they represent must be much older; and in trying to enter into the spirit of the Six Systems, we must implicitly trust to their guidance, without allowing ourselves to be disturbed by the fancies of later sects.

Ahamkara, mental act, 327.
of three kinds, 346.

--

the cause of creation, 371.
personal feelings, 558.

Aisvaryas, or superhuman powers,

Aitihya, tradition, 518, 562.
Akâsa, fifth element, vehicle of