The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha, by Madhava Acharya

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org


Title: The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha
       Review of the Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy

Author: Madhava Acharya

Translator: E. B. Cowell
            A. E. Gough

Release Date: October 24, 2010 [EBook #34125]

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SARVA-DARSANA-SAMGRAHA ***




Produced by Sankar Viswanathan, Brownfox, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive)

TRÜBNER'S

ORIENTAL SERIES.

THE

SARVA-DARŚANA-SAṂGRAHA

OR

REVIEW OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HINDU PHILOSOPHY.

BY

MÁDHAVA ÁCHÁRYA.

TRANSLATED BY

E. B. COWELL, M.A.

PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT AND FELLOW OF CORPUS CHRISTI COLLEGE IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE,
AND HONORARY LL.D. OF THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH.

AND

A. E. GOUGH, M.A.

PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THE PRESIDENCY COLLEGE, AND
PRINCIPAL OF THE MADRASA, CALCUTTA.

LONDON:

TRÜBNER & CO., LUDGATE HILL.

1882.

[v]

PREFACE.

I well remember the interest excited among the learned Hindus of Calcutta by the publication of the Sarva-darśana-saṃgraha of Mádhava Áchárya in the Bibliotheca Indica in 1858. It was originally edited by Paṇḍit Íśvarachandra Vidyáságara, but a subsequent edition, with no important alterations, was published in 1872 by Paṇḍit Táránátha Tarkaváchaspati. The work had been used by Wilson in his "Sketch of the Religious Sects of the Hindus" (first published in the Asiatic Researches, vol. xvi., Calcutta, 1828); but it does not appear to have been ever much known in India. MS. copies of it are very scarce; and those found in the North of India, as far as I have had an opportunity of examining them, seem to be all derived from one copy, brought originally from the South, and therefore written in the Telugu character. Certain mistakes are found in all alike, and probably arose from some illegible readings in the old Telugu original. I have noticed the same thing in the Nágarí copies of Mádhava's Commentary on the Black Yajur Veda, which are current in the North of India.

As I was at that time the Oriental Secretary of the Bengal[vi] Asiatic Society, I was naturally attracted to the book; and I subsequently read it with my friend Paṇḍit Maheśachandra Nyáyaratna, the present Principal of the Sanskrit College at Calcutta. I always hoped to translate it into English; but I was continually prevented by other engagements while I remained in India. Soon after my return to England, I tried to carry out my intention; but I found that several chapters, to which I had not paid the same attention as to the rest, were too difficult to be translated in England, where I could no longer enjoy the advantage of reference to my old friends the Paṇḍits of the Sanskrit College. In despair I laid my translation aside for years, until I happened to learn that my friend, Mr. A. E. Gough, at that time a Professor in the Sanskrit College at Benares, was thinking of translating the book. I at once proposed to him that we should do it together, and he kindly consented to my proposal; and we accordingly each undertook certain chapters of the work. He had the advantage of the help of some of the Paṇḍits of Benares, especially of Paṇḍit Ráma Miśra, the assistant Professor of Sáṅkhya, who was himself a Rámánuja; and I trust that, though we have doubtless left some things unexplained or explained wrongly, we may have been able to throw light on many of the dark sayings with which the original abounds. Our translations were originally published at intervals in the Benares Paṇḍit between 1874 and 1878; but they have been carefully revised for their present republication.

The work itself is an interesting specimen of Hindu critical ability. The author successively passes in review[vii] the sixteen philosophical systems current in the fourteenth century in the South of India, and gives what appeared to him to be their most important tenets, and the principal arguments by which their followers endeavoured to maintain them; and he often displays some quaint humour as he throws himself for the time into the position of their advocate, and holds, as it were, a temporary brief in behalf of opinions entirely at variance with his own.[1] We may sometimes differ from him in his judgment of the relative importance of their doctrines, but it is always interesting to see the point of view of an acute native critic. In the course of his sketches he frequently explains at some length obscure details in the different systems; and I can hardly imagine a better guide for the European reader who wishes to study any one of these Darśanas in its native authorities. In one or two cases (as notably in the Bauddha, and perhaps in the Jaina system) he could only draw his materials second-hand from the discussions in the works of Brahmanical controversialists; but in the great majority he quotes directly from the works of their founders or leading exponents, and he is continually following in their track even where he does not quote their exact words.[2]

The systems are arranged from the Vedánta point of view,—our author having been elected, in A.D. 1331, the head [viii]of the Smárta order in the Maṭh of Śṛingeri in the Mysore territory, founded by Śaṃkara Áchárya, the great Vedántist teacher of the eighth century, through whose efforts the Vedánta became what it is at present—the acknowledged view of Hindu orthodoxy. The systems form a gradually ascending scale,—the first, the Chárváka and Bauddha, being the lowest as the furthest removed from the Vedánta, and the last, the Sáṅkhya and Yoga, being the highest as approaching most nearly to it.

The sixteen systems here discussed attracted to their study the noblest minds in India throughout the mediæval period of its history. Hiouen Thsang says of the schools in his day: "Les écoles philosophiques sont constamment en lutte, et le bruit de leurs discussions passionnées s'élève comme les flots de la mer. Les hérétiques des diverses sectes s'attachent à des maîtres particuliers, et, par des voies différentes, marchent tous au même but." We can still catch some faint echo of the din as we read the mediæval literature. Thus, for instance, when King Harsha wanders among the Vindhya forests, he finds "seated on the rocks and reclining under the trees Árhata begging monks, Śvetapadas, Mahápáśupatas, Páṇḍarabhikshus, Bhágavatas, Varṇins, Keśaluñchanas, Lokáyatikas, Kápilas, Káṇádas, Aupanishadas, Ísvarakárins, Dharmaśástrins, Pauráṇikas, Sáptatantavas, Śábdas, Páñcharátrikas, &c., all listening to their own accepted tenets and zealously defending them."[3] Many of these sects will occupy us in the ensuing pages; many of them also are found in Mádhava's poem on the controversial triumphs [ix]of Śaṃkara Áchárya, and in the spurious prose work on the same subject, ascribed to Anantánandagiri. Well may some old poet have put into the mouth of Yudhishṭhira the lines which one so often hears from the lips of modern paṇḍits—

And may we not also say with Clement of Alexandria,

μιᾶς τοίνυν οὔσης τῆς ἀληθείας, τὸ γὰρ ψεῦδος μυρίας
ἐκτροπὰς ἔχει, καθάπερ αἱ βάκχαι τὰ τοῦ Πενθέως διαφορήσασαι
μέλη αἱ τῆς φιλοσοφίας τῆς τε βαρβάρου τῆς τε
Ἑλληνικῆς αἱρέσεις, ἑκάστη ὅπερ ἔλαχεν, ὡς πᾶσαν αὐχεῖ
τὴν ἀλήθειαν, φωτὸς δ', οἶμαι, ἀνατολῇ πάντα φωτίζεται.

E. B. C.

CONTENTS.

[1]

THE SARVA-DARŚANA-SAṄGRAHA.

THE PROLOGUE.

1. I worship Śiva, the abode of eternal knowledge, the storehouse of supreme felicity; by whom the earth and the rest were produced, in him only has this all a maker.

2. Daily I follow my Guru Sarvajña-Vishṇu, who knows all the Ágamas, the son of Śárṅgapáṇi, who has gone to the further shore of the seas of all the systems, and has contented the hearts of all mankind by the proper meaning of the term Soul.

3. The synopsis of all the systems is made by the venerable Mádhava mighty in power, the Kaustubha-jewel of the milk-ocean of the fortunate Sáyaṇa.

4. Having thoroughly searched the Śástras of former teachers, very hard to be crossed, the fortunate Sáyaṇa-Mádhava[5] the lord has expounded them for the delight of the good. Let the virtuous listen with a mind from which all envy has been far banished; who finds not delight in a garland strung of various flowers?

[2]

CHAPTER I.

THE CHÁRVÁKA SYSTEM.

[We have said in our preliminary invocation "salutation to Śiva, the abode of eternal knowledge, the storehouse of supreme felicity,"] but how can we attribute to the Divine Being the giving of supreme felicity, when such a notion has been utterly abolished by Chárváka, the crest-gem of the atheistical school, the follower of the doctrine of Bṛihaspati? The efforts of Chárváka are indeed hard to be eradicated, for the majority of living beings hold by the current refrain—

The mass of men, in accordance with the Śástras of policy and enjoyment, considering wealth and desire the only ends of man, and denying the existence of any object belonging to a future world, are found to follow only the doctrine of Chárváka. Hence another name for that school is Lokáyata,—a name well accordant with the thing signified.[6]

In this school the four elements, earth, &c., are the [3]original principles; from these alone, when transformed into the body, intelligence is produced, just as the inebriating power is developed from the mixing of certain ingredients;[7] and when these are destroyed, intelligence at once perishes also. They quote the Śruti for this [Bṛihad Áraṇy. Up. ii. 4, 12], "Springing forth from these elements, itself solid knowledge, it is destroyed when they are destroyed,—after death no intelligence remains."[8] Therefore the soul is only the body distinguished by the attribute of intelligence, since there is no evidence for any soul distinct from the body, as such cannot be proved, since this school holds that perception is the only source of knowledge and does not allow inference, &c.

The only end of man is enjoyment produced by sensual pleasures. Nor may you say that such cannot be called the end of man as they are always mixed with some kind of pain, because it is our wisdom to enjoy the pure pleasure as far as we can, and to avoid the pain which inevitably accompanies it; just as the man who desires fish takes the fish with their scales and bones, and having taken as many as he wants, desists; or just as the man who desires rice, takes the rice, straw and all, and having taken as much as he wants, desists. It is not therefore for us, through a fear of pain, to reject the pleasure which our nature instinctively recognises as congenial. Men do not refrain from sowing rice, because forsooth there are wild animals to devour it; nor do they refuse to set the cooking-pots on the fire, because forsooth there are beggars to pester us for a share of the contents. If any one were [4]so timid as to forsake a visible pleasure, he would indeed be foolish like a beast, as has been said by the poet—

If you object that, if there be no such thing as happiness in a future world, then how should men of experienced wisdom engage in the agnihotra and other sacrifices, which can only be performed with great expenditure of money and bodily fatigue, your objection cannot be accepted as any proof to the contrary, since the agnihotra, &c., are only useful as means of livelihood, for the Veda is tainted by the three faults of untruth, self-contradiction, and tautology;[10] then again the impostors who call themselves Vaidic pundits are mutually destructive, as the authority of the jñána-káṇḍa is overthrown by those who maintain that of the karma-káṇḍa, while those who maintain the authority of the jñána-káṇḍa reject that of the karma-káṇḍa; and lastly, the three Vedas themselves are only the incoherent rhapsodies of knaves, and to this effect runs the popular saying—

Hence it follows that there is no other hell than mundane pain produced by purely mundane causes, as thorns, &c.; the only Supreme is the earthly monarch whose existence is proved by all the world's eyesight; and the only Liberation is the dissolution of the body. By holding the doctrine that the soul is identical with the body, [5]such phrases as "I am thin," "I am black," &c., are at once intelligible, as the attributes of thinness, &c., and self-consciousness will reside in the same subject [the body]; like and the use of the phrase "my body" is metaphorical "the head of Ráhu" [Ráhu being really all head].

All this has been thus summed up—

"Be it so," says the opponent; "your wish would be gained if inference, &c., had no force of proof; but then they have this force; else, if they had not, then how, on perceiving smoke, should the thoughts of the intelligent immediately proceed to fire; or why, on hearing another say, 'There are fruits on the bank of the river,' do those who desire fruit proceed at once to the shore?"

All this, however, is only the inflation of the world of fancy.

Those who maintain the authority of inference accept the sign or middle term as the causer of knowledge, which middle term must be found in the minor and be itself invariably connected with the major.[13] Now this invariable connection must be a relation destitute of any condition accepted or disputed;[14] and this connection does not possess its power of causing inference by virtue of its existence, as the eye, &c., are the cause of perception, but by virtue of its being known. What then is the means of this connection's being known?

[6]

We will first show that it is not perception. Now perception is held to be of two kinds, external and internal [i.e., as produced by the external senses, or by the inner sense, mind]. The former is not the required means; for although it is possible that the actual contact of the senses and the object will produce the knowledge of the particular object thus brought in contact, yet as there can never be such contact in the case of the past or the future, the universal proposition[15] which was to embrace the invariable connection of the middle and major terms in every case becomes impossible to be known. Nor may you maintain that this knowledge of the universal proposition has the general class as its object, because if so, there might arise a doubt as to the existence of the invariable connection in this particular case[16] [as, for instance, in this particular smoke as implying fire].

Nor is internal perception the means, since you cannot establish that the mind has any power to act independently towards an external object, since all allow that it is dependent on the external senses, as has been said by one of the logicians, "The eye, &c., have their objects as described; but mind externally is dependent on the others."

Nor can inference be the means of the knowledge of the universal proposition, since in the case of this inference we should also require another inference to establish it, and so on, and hence would arise the fallacy of an ad infinitum retrogression.

Nor can testimony be the means thereof, since we may either allege in reply, in accordance with the Vaiśeshika doctrine of Kaṇáda, that this is included in the topic of inference; or else we may hold that this fresh proof of testimony is unable to leap over the old barrier that [7]stopped the progress of inference, since it depends itself on the recognition of a sign in the form of the language used in the child's presence by the old man;[17] and, moreover, there is no more reason for our believing on another's word that smoke and fire are invariably connected, than for our receiving the ipse dixit of Manu, &c. [which, of course, we Chárvákas reject].

And again, if testimony were to be accepted as the only means of the knowledge of the universal proposition, then in the case of a man to whom the fact of the invariable connection between the middle and major terms had not been pointed out by another person, there could be no inference of one thing [as fire] on seeing another thing [as smoke]; hence, on your own showing, the whole topic of inference for oneself[18] would have to end in mere idle words.

Then again comparison,[19] &c., must be utterly rejected as the means of the knowledge of the universal proposition, since it is impossible that they can produce the knowledge of the unconditioned connection [i.e., the universal proposition], because their end is to produce the knowledge of quite another connection, viz., the relation of a name to something so named.

Again, this same absence of a condition,[20] which has been given as the definition of an invariable connection [i.e., a universal proposition], can itself never be known; since it is impossible to establish that all conditions must be objects of perception; and therefore, although the absence of [8]perceptible things may be itself perceptible, the absence of non-perceptible things must be itself non-perceptible; and thus, since we must here too have recourse to inference, &c., we cannot leap over the obstacle which has already been planted to bar them. Again, we must accept as the definition of the condition, "it is that which is reciprocal or equipollent in extension[21] with the major term though not constantly accompanying the middle." These three distinguishing clauses, "not constantly accompanying the middle term," "constantly accompanying the major term," and "being constantly accompanied by it" [i.e., reciprocal], are needed in the full definition to stop respectively three such fallacious conditions, in the argument to prove the non-eternity of sound, as "being produced," "the nature of a jar," and "the not causing audition;"[22] wherefore the definition holds,—and again it is established by the śloka of the great Doctor beginning samásama.[23]

[9]

But since the knowledge of the condition must here precede the knowledge of the condition's absence, it is only when there is the knowledge of the condition, that the knowledge of the universality of the proposition is possible, i.e., a knowledge in the form of such a connection between the middle term and major term as is distinguished by the absence of any such condition; and on the other hand, the knowledge of the condition depends upon the knowledge of the invariable connection. Thus we fasten on our opponents as with adamantine glue the thunderbolt-like fallacy of reasoning in a circle. Hence by the impossibility of knowing the universality of a proposition it becomes impossible to establish inference, &c.[24]

The step which the mind takes from the knowledge of smoke, &c., to the knowledge of fire, &c., can be accounted for by its being based on a former perception or by its being an error; and that in some cases this step is justified by the result, is accidental just like the coincidence of effects observed in the employment of gems, charms, drugs, &c.

From this it follows that fate, &c.,[25] do not exist, since these can only be proved by inference. But an opponent will say, if you thus do not allow adṛishṭa, the various phenomena of the world become destitute of any cause.

[10]

But we cannot accept this objection as valid, since these phenomena can all be produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things. Thus it has been said—

And all this has been also said by Bṛihaspati—

Hence in kindness to the mass of living beings must we fly for refuge to the doctrine of Chárváka. Such is the pleasant consummation.

E. B. C.

[12]

CHAPTER II.

THE BAUDDHA SYSTEM.

At this point the Buddhists remark: As for what you (Chárvákas) laid down as to the difficulty of ascertaining invariable concomitance, your position is unacceptable, inasmuch as invariable concomitance is easily cognisable by means of identity and causality. It has accordingly been said—

On the hypothesis (of the Naiyáyikas) that it is concomitance and non-concomitance (e.g., A is where B is, A is not where B is not) that determine an invariable connection, the unconditional attendance of the major or the middle term would be unascertainable, it being impossible to exclude all doubt with regard to instances past and future, and present but unperceived. If one (a Naiyáyika) rejoin that uncertainty in regard to such instances is equally inevitable on our system, we reply: Say not so, for such a supposition as that an effect may be produced without any cause would destroy itself by putting a stop to activity of any kind; for such doubts [13]alone are to be entertained, the entertainment of which does not implicate us in practical absurdity and the like, as it has been said, "Doubt terminates where there is a practical absurdity."[30]

1. By ascertainment of an effectuation, then, of that (viz., of the designate of the middle) is ascertained the invariable concomitance (of the major); and the ascertainment of such effectuation may arise from the well-known series of five causes, in the perceptive cognition or non-cognition of cause and effect. That fire and smoke, for instance, stand in the relation of cause and effect is ascertained by five indications, viz., (1.) That an effect is not cognised prior to its effectuation, that (2.) the cause being perceived (3.) the effect is perceived, and that after the effect is cognised (4.) there is its non-cognition, (5.) when the (material) cause is no longer cognised.

2. In like manner an invariable concomitance is ascertained by the ascertainment of identity (e.g., a sisu-tree is a tree, or wherever we observe the attributes of a sisu we observe also the attribute arboreity), an absurdity attaching to the contrary opinion, inasmuch as if a sisu-tree should lose its arboreity it would lose its own self. But, on the other hand, where there exists no absurdity, and where a (mere) concomitance is again and again observed, who can exclude all doubt of failure in the concomitance? An ascertainment of the identity of sisu and tree is competent in virtue of the reference to the same object (i.e., predication),—This tree is a sisu. For reference to the same object (predication) is not competent where there is no difference whatever (e.g., to say, "A jar is a jar," is no combination of diverse attributes in a common subject), because the two terms cannot, as being synonymous, be simultaneously employed; nor can reference to the same object take place where there is a reciprocal exclusion (of the two terms), inasmuch as we never find, for instance, horse and cow predicated the one of the other.[14]

It has thus been evinced that an effect or a self-same supposes a cause or a self-same (as invariable concomitants).

If a man does not allow that inference is a form of evidence, pramáṇa, one may reply: You merely assert thus much, that inference is not a form of evidence: do you allege no proof of this, or do you allege any? The former alternative is not allowable according to the maxim that bare assertion is no proof of the matter asserted. Nor is the latter alternative any better, for if while you assert that inference is no form of evidence, you produce some truncated argument (to prove, i.e., infer, that it is none), you will be involved in an absurdity, just as if you asserted your own mother to be barren. Besides, when you affirm that the establishment of a form of evidence and of the corresponding fallacious evidence results from their homogeneity, you yourself admit induction by identity. Again, when you affirm that the dissentiency of others is known by the symbolism of words, you yourself allow induction by causality. When you deny the existence of any object on the ground of its not being perceived, you yourself admit an inference of which non-perception is the middle term. Conformably it has been said by Tathágata—

All this has been fully handled by great authorities; and we desist for fear of an undue enlargement of our treatise.

These same Bauddhas discuss the highest end of man from four standpoints. Celebrated under the designations of Mádhyamika, Yogáchára, Sautrántika, and Vaibháshika, these Buddhists adopt respectively the doctrines of a universal void (nihilism), an external void (subjective idealism), the inferribility of external objects (representationism[15]), and the perceptibility of external objects (presentationism).[31] Though the venerated Buddha be the only one teacher (his disciples) are fourfold in consequence of this diversity of views; just as when one has said, "The sun has set," the adulterer, the thief, the divinity student, and others understand that it is time to set about their assignations, their theft, their religious duties, and so forth, according to their several inclinations.

It is to be borne in mind that four points of view have been laid out, viz., (1.) All is momentary, momentary; (2.) all is pain, pain; (3.) all is like itself alone; (4.) all is void, void.

Of these points of view, the momentariness of fleeting things, blue and so forth (i.e., whatever be their quality), is to be inferred from their existence; thus, whatever is is momentary (or fluxional) like a bank of clouds, and all these things are.[32] Nor may any one object that the middle term (existence) is unestablished; for an existence consisting of practical efficiency is established by perception to belong to the blue and other momentary things; and the exclusion of existence from that which is not momentary is established, provided that we exclude from [16]it the non-momentary succession and simultaneity, according to the rule that exclusion of the continent is exclusion of the contained. Now this practical efficiency (here identified with existence) is contained under succession and simultaneity, and no medium is possible between succession and non-succession (or simultaneity); there being a manifest absurdity in thinking otherwise, according to the rule—

And this succession and simultaneity being excluded from the permanent, and also excluding from the permanent all practical efficiency, determine existence of the alternative of momentariness.—q.e.d.

Perhaps some one may ask: Why may not practical efficiency reside in the non-fluxional (or permanent)? If so, this is wrong, as obnoxious to the following dilemma. Has your "permanent" a power of past and future practical efficiency during its exertion of present practical efficiency or no? On the former alternative (if it has such power), it cannot evacuate such past and future efficiency, because we cannot deny that it has power, and because we infer the consequence, that which can at any time do anything does not fail to do that at that time, as, for instance, a complement of causes, and this entity is thus powerful. On the latter alternative (if the permanent has no such power of past and future agency), it will never do anything, because practical efficiency results from power only; what at any time does not do anything, that at that time is unable to do it, as, for instance, a piece of stone does not produce a germ; and this entity while exerting its present practical efficiency, does not exert its past and future practical efficiency. Such is the contradiction.

You will perhaps rejoin: By assuming successive[17] subsidiaries, there is competent to the permanent entity a successive exertion of past and future practical efficiency. If so, we would ask you to explain: Do the subsidiaries assist the entity or not? If they do not, they are not required; for if they do nothing, they can have nothing to do with the successive exertion. If they do assist the thing, is this assistance (or supplementation) other than the thing or not? If it is other than the thing, then this adscititious (assistance) is the cause, and the non-momentary entity is not the cause: for the effect will then follow, by concomitance and non-concomitance, the adventitious supplementation. Thus it has been said:

Perhaps you will say: The entity produces its effect, together with its subsidiaries. Well, then (we reply), let the entity not give up its subsidiaries, but rather tie them lest they fly with a rope round their neck, and so produce the effect which it has to produce, and without forfeiting its own proper nature. Besides (we continue), does the additament (or supplementation) constituted by the subsidiaries give rise to another additament or not? In either case the afore-mentioned objections will come down upon you like a shower of stones. On the alternative that the additament takes on another additament, you will be embarrassed by a many-sided regress in infinitum. If when the additament is to be generated another auxiliary (or additament) be required, there will ensue an endless series of such additaments: this must be confessed to be one infinite regress. For example, let a seed be granted to be productive when an additament is given, consisting of a complement of objects such as water, wind, and the like, as subsidiaries; otherwise an additament would be manifested without subsidiaries. Now the seed in taking[18] on the additament takes it on with the need of (ulterior) subsidiaries; otherwise, as there would always be subsidiaries, it would follow that a germ would always be arising from the seed. We shall now have to add to the seed another supplementation by subsidiaries themselves requiring an additament. If when this additament is given, the seed be productive only on condition of subsidiaries as before, there will be established an infinite regression of additaments to (or supplementations of) the seed, to be afforded by the subsidiaries.

Again, we ask, does the supplementation required for the production of the effect produce its effect independently of the seed and the like, or does it require the seed and the like? On the first alternative (if the supplementation works independently), it would ensue that the seed is in no way a cause. On the second (if the supplementation require the seed), the seed, or whatever it may be that is thus required, must take on a supplementation or additament, and thus there will be over and over again an endless series of additaments added to the additament constituted by the seed; and thus a second infinite regression is firmly set up.

In like manner the subsidiary which is required will add another subsidiary to the seed, or whatever it may be that is the subject of the additions, and thus there will be an endless succession of additaments added to the additaments to the seed which is supplemented by the subsidiaries; and so a third infinite regression will add to your embarrassment.

Now (or the other grand alternative), let it be granted that a supplementation identical with the entity (the seed, or whatever it may be) is taken on. If so, the former entity, that minus the supplementation, is no more, and a new entity identical with the supplementation, and designated (in the technology of Buddhism) kurvad rúpa (or effect-producing object), comes into being: and thus the[19] tree of my desires (my doctrine of a universal flux) has borne its fruit.

Practical efficiency, therefore, in the non-momentary is inadmissible. Nor is practical efficiency possible apart from succession in time; for such a possibility is redargued by the following dilemma. Is this (permanent) entity (which you contend for) able to produce all its effects simultaneously, or does it continue to exist after production of effects? On the former alternative, it will result that the entity will produce its effects just as much at one time as at another; on the second alternative, the expectation of its permanency is as reasonable as expecting seed eaten by a mouse to germinate.

That to which contrary determinations are attributed is diverse, as heat and cold; but this thing is determined by contrary attributions. Such is the argumentation applied to the cloud (to prove that it has not a permanent but a fluxional existence). Nor is the middle term disallowable, for possession and privation of power and impotence are allowed in regard to the permanent (which you assert) at different times. The concomitance and non-concomitance already described (viz., That which can at any time do anything does not fail to do that at that time, and What at any time does not do anything, that at that time is unable to do it) are affirmed (by us) to prove the existence of such power. The negative rule is: What at any time is unable to produce anything, that at that time does not produce it, as a piece of stone, for example, does not produce a germ; and this entity (the seed, or whatever it may be), while exerting a present practical efficiency, is incapable of past and future practical efficiencies. The contradiction violating this rule is: What at any time does anything, that at that time is able to do that thing, as a complement of causes is able to produce its effect; and this (permanent) entity exerts at time past and time future the practical efficiencies proper to those times.[20]

(To recapitulate.) Existence is restricted to the momentary; there being observed in regard to existence a negative rule, that in regard to permanent succession and simultaneity being excluded, existence which contains succession and simultaneity is not cognisable; and there being observed in regard to existence a positive rule, in virtue of a concomitance observed (viz., that the existent is accompanied or "pervaded" by the momentary), and in virtue of a non-concomitance observed (viz., that the non-momentary is accompanied or "pervaded" by the non-existent). Therefore it has been said by Jñána-śrí—

Nor is it to be held, in acceptance of the hypothesis of the Vaiśeshikas and Naiyáyikas, that existence is a participation in the universal form existence; for were this the case, universality, particularity, and co-inhesion (which do not participate in the universal) could have no existence.

Nor is the ascription of existence to universality, particularity, and co-inhesion dependent on any sui generis existence of their own; for such an hypothesis is operose, requiring too many sui generis existences. Moreover, the existence of any universal is disproved by a dilemma regarding the presence or non-presence (of the one in the many); and there is not presented to us any one form running through all the diverse momentary things, mustard-seeds, mountains, and so forth, like the string running[21] through the gems strung upon it. Moreover (we would ask), is the universal omnipresent or present everywhere in its subjicible subjects? If it is everywhere, all things in the universe will be confounded together (chaos will be eternal), and you will be involved in a tenet you reject, since Praśasta-páda has said, "Present in all its subjects." Again (if the universal is present only in its proper subjects), does the universal (the nature of a jar) residing in an already existing jar, on being attached to another jar now in making, come from the one to attach itself to the other, or not come from it? On the first alternative (if it comes), the universal must be a substance (for substances alone underlie qualities and motions); whereas, if it does not come, it cannot attach itself to the new jar. Again (we ask), when the jar ceases to exist, does the universal outlast it, or cease to exist, or go to another place? On the first supposition it will exist without a subject to inhere in; on the second, it will be improper to call it eternal (as you do); on the third, it will follow that it is a substance (or base of qualities and motions). Destroyed as it is by the malign influence of these and the like objections, the universal is unauthenticated.

Conformably it has been said—

If you ask: On what does the assurance that the one exists in the many rest? You must be satisfied with the reply that we concede it to repose on difference from that which is different (or exclusion of heterogeneity). We dismiss further prolixity.[22]

That all transmigratory existence is identical with pain is the common verdict of all the founders of institutes, else they would not be found desirous to put a stop to it and engaging in the method for bringing it to an end. We must, therefore, bear in mind that all is pain, and pain alone.

If you object: When it is asked, like what? you must quote an instance,—we reply: Not so, for momentary objects self-characterised being momentary, have no common characters, and therefore it is impossible to say that this is like that. We must therefore hold that all is like itself alone, like itself alone.

In like manner we must hold that all is void, and void alone. For we are conscious of a determinate negation. This silver or the like has not been seen by me in sleeping or waking. If what is seen were (really) existent, then reality would pertain to the corresponding act of vision, to the (nacre, &c.), which is the basis of its particular nature (or haecceity), to the silver, &c., illusorily superposed upon that basis, to the connection between them, to the co-inherence, and so forth: a supposition not entertained by any disputant. Nor is a semi-effete existence admissible. No one imagines that one-half of a fowl may be set apart for cooking, and the other half for laying eggs. The venerated Buddha, then, having taught that of the illusorily superposed (silver, &c.), the basis (nacre, &c.), the connection between them, the act of vision, and the videns, if one or more be unreal it will perforce ensue that all are unreal, all being equally objects of the negation; the Mádhyamikas excellently wise explain as follows, viz., that the doctrine of Buddha terminates in that of a total void (universal baselessness or nihilism) by a slow progression like the intrusive steps of a mendicant, through the position of a momentary flux, and through the (gradual) negation of the illusory assurances of pleasurable sensibility, of universality, and of reality.

The ultimate principle, then, is a void emancipated from[23] four alternatives, viz., from reality, from unreality, from both (reality and unreality), and from neither (reality nor unreality). To exemplify this: If real existence were the nature of a water-pot and the like, the activity of its maker (the potter) would be superfluous.

If non-existence be its nature the same objection will accrue; as it is said—

The two remaining alternatives, as self-contradictory, are inadmissible. It has accordingly been laid down by the venerated Buddha in the Alaṅkárávatára[34]—

And again—

That is to say, the objects are not determined by any one of the four alternatives. Hence it is that it has been said—

In consequence, then, of these four points of view, when all ideas are come to an end, final extinction, which is a void, will result. Accordingly we have overtaken our end, [24]and there is nothing to be taught to us. There consequently remain only two duties to the student—interrogation and acceptance. Of these, interrogation is the putting of questions in order to attain knowledge not yet attained. Acceptance is assent to the matters stated by the sacred teacher. These (Bauddha nihilists) are excellent in assenting to that which the religious teacher enounces, and defective in interrogation, whence their conventional designation of Mádhyamikas (or mediocre).

Certain other Buddhists are styled Yogácháras, because while they accept the four points of view proclaimed by the spiritual guide, and the void of external things, they make the interrogation: Why has a void of the internal (or baselessness of mental phenomena) been admitted? For their technology is as follows:—Self-subsistent cognition must be allowed, or it will follow that the whole universe is blind. It has conformably been proclaimed by Dharmakírti: "To one who disallows perception the vision of objects is not competent."

An external percipibile is not admissible in consequence of the following dilemma. Does the object cognitively apprehensible arise from an entity or not? It does not result from an entity, for that which is generated has no permanence. Nor is it non-resultant, for what has not come into being is non-existent. Or (we may proceed) do you hold that a past object is cognitively apprehensible, as begetting cognition? If so, this is childish nonsense, because it conflicts with the apparent presentness of the object, and because on such a supposition the sense organs (and other imperceptible things) might be apprehended. Further (we ask), Is the percipibile a simple atom or a complex body? The latter it cannot be, this alternative being ejected by the dilemma as to whether part or whole is perceived. The former alternative is equally impossible, an atom being supersensible, and it not being able to combine simultaneously with six others; as it has been said[25]—

Intellect, therefore, as having no other percipibile but itself, is shown to be itself its own percipibile, self-subsistent, luminous with its own light, like light. Therefore it has been said—

The identity of percipient and percept is inferrible, thus: That which is cognised by any cognition is not other than that cognition, as soul, for instance, is not other than the cognition of soul; and blue and other momentary objects are cognised by cognitions. For if there were a difference (between percept and percipient), the object could not now have any connection with the cognition, there being no identity to determine a constancy of connection, and nothing to determine the rise of such a connection. As for the appearance of an interval between the object and subject consciousnesses, this is an illusion, like the appearance of two moons when there is only one. The cause of this illusion is ideation of difference in a stream without beginning and without interruption; as it has been said—

And again—

Nor must it be supposed that (on this hypothesis) the[26] juice, the energy, and the digestion derivable from an imaginary and an actual sweetmeat will be the same; for it cannot be questioned that though the intellect be in strictness exempt from the modes of object and subject, yet there is competent to it a practical distinction in virtue of the succession of illusory ideas without beginning, by reason of its possessing diverse modes percept and percipient, conformably to its illusory supposition of practical agency, just as to those whose eyes are dim with some morbid affection a hair and another minute object may appear either diverse or identical; as it has been said—

Thus it has been evinced that intellect, as affected by beginningless ideation, manifests itself under diverse forms.

When, therefore, by constancy of reflection (on the four points of view) aforesaid, all ideation has been interrupted, there arises knowledge purged from the illusions which take the form of objects, such illusions being now melted away; and this is technically called Mahodaya (the grand exaltation, emancipation).

Others again (the Sautrántikas) hold that the position that there is no external world is untenable, as wanting evidence. Nor (they contend) can it be maintained that invariability of simultaneous cognition is an evidence, for this simultaneous cognition which you accept as proof of the identity of subject and object is indecisive, being found in dubious and in contrary instances. If you rejoin (they[27] proceed): Let there be a proof of this identity, and let this proof be invariability of simultaneous cognition,—we refuse this, because inasmuch as cognition must ultimately have some object, it is manifested in duality, and because such invariability of simultaneity as to time and place is impossible. Moreover (they continue), if the object, blue or whatever it be, were only a form of cognition, it should be presented as Ego, not as Hoc aliquid, because the cognition and the object would be identical. Perhaps you will say: A blue form consisting of cognition is illusorily presented as external and as other than self, and consequently the Ego is not suggested; and so it has been said—

And again—

To this we reply (say the Sautrántikas): This is untenable, for if there be no external objects, there being no genesis of such, the comparison "as if they were external" is illegitimate. No man in his senses would say, "Vasumitra looks like the son of a childless mother." Again, if the manifestation of identity be proved by the illusoriness of the presentment of duality, and the presentment of duality be proved illusory by the manifestation of identity, you are involved in a logical circle. Without controversy we observe that cognitions take external things, blue or whatever they may be, as their objects, and do not take merely internal modifications as such, and we see that men in their everyday life overlook their internal states. Thus this argument which you adduce to prove that there is difference between subject and object, turns out a mere absurdity, like milky food made of cow-dung. When then you say "as if it were external," you must already suppose[28] an external percipibile, and your own arrow will return upon you and wound you.

If any one object that the externality of an object synchronous with the cognition is inadmissible, we (Sautrántikas) reply that this objection is inadmissible, inasmuch as the subject in juxtaposition to the sensory imposes its form upon the cognition then in production, and the object is inferrible from the form thus imposed. The interrogation and response on this point have been thus summarised—

To exemplify. As nourishment is inferred from a thriving look, as nationality is inferred from language, and as affection is inferred from flurried movements, so from the form of knowledge a knowable may be inferred. Therefore it has been said—

For consciousness of the cognition cannot be the being of the cognition, for this consciousness is everywhere alike, and if indifference were to attach itself to this, it would reduce all things to indifference. Accordingly the formal argument for the existence of external things: Those things which while a thing exists appear only at times, all depend upon something else than that thing; as, for instance, if I do not wish to speak or to walk, presentments of speaking or walking must suppose others desirous of speaking or walking; and in like manner the presentments of activity under discussion, while there exists the recognition of a subject of them, are only at times manifested as blue and so forth. Of these, the recognition of a subject is the presentation of the Ego, the manifestation as blue and[29] so forth is a presentment of activity, as it has been said—

Over and above, therefore, the complement of subject-recognitions, let it be understood that there is an external object world perceptible, which is the cause of presentments of activity; and that this external world does not rise into being only from time to time on occasion of presentments resulting from ideation.

According to the view of the Sensationalists (vijñánavádin), ideation is a power of generating such and such sensations (or presentments of activity) in subject-recognitions which exist as a single stream. The maturescence of this power is its readiness to produce its effect; of this the result is a presentment (or sensation); the antecedent momentary object (sensation) in the mental train is accepted as the cause, no other mental train being admitted to exercise such causality. It must therefore be stated that all momentary objects (fleeting sensations) in the subject-consciousness are alike able to bring about that maturescence of ideation in the subject-consciousness, which maturescence is productive of presentments of activity. If any one (of these fleeting sensations) had not this power, none would possess it, all existing alike in the stream of subject-recognitions. On the supposition that they all have this power, the effects cannot be diversified, and therefore any intelligent man, however unwilling, if he has a clear understanding, must decide, without putting out of sight the testimony of his consciousness, that to account for the occasional nature (of sense percepts) the six cognitions of sound, touch, colour, taste, and smell, of pleasure, and so forth, are produced on occasion of four conditions. These four conditions are known as (1.) the data, (2.) the suggestion, (3.) the medium, and (4.) the[30] dominant (organ). Of these, the form of blue or the like arises from the condition of blue data in the understanding in which there is a manifestation of blue or the like, which manifestation is styled a cognition. The resuscitation of forms or cognitions arises from suggestion as a condition. The restriction to the apprehension of this or that object arises from the medium, light, for instance, as a condition, and from the dominant, the eye, for example, as another condition. The eye, as determinant of one particular cognition (form) where taste, &c., might have been equally cognised, is able to become dominant; for in everyday life he who determines is regarded as dominant. We must thus recognise four causes of pleasure and the rest which constitute the understanding and its modifications.

So also the universe, which consists of mind and its modifications, is of five kinds, entitled (1.) the sensational, (2.) the perceptional, (3.) the affectional, (4.) the verbal, and (5.) the impressional. Of these, the sensible world (rúpa-skandha) is the sense organs and their objects, according to the etymology, viz., that objects are discriminated (rúpyante) by these. The perceptional world is the stream of subject-recognitions and of presentments of activity. The affectional world is the stream of feelings of pleasure and pain generated by the two aforesaid worlds. The verbal (or symbolical) world is the stream of cognitions conversant about words—the words "cow," and so forth. The impressional world is the miseries, as desire, aversion, &c., caused by the affectional world, the lesser miseries, as conceit, pride, &c., and merit and demerit.

Reflecting, therefore, that this universe is pain, an abode of pain, and an instrument of pain, a man should acquire a knowledge of the principles, the method of suppressing this pain. Hence it has been said—

[31]

In these words the sense of pain is known to every one; the "aggregate" means the cause of pain. This aggregate is twofold, as (1.) determined by concurrence; or (2.) determined by causation. Of these, there is an aphorism comprising the aggregate determined by concurrence, "which other causes resort to this effect;" the condition of these causes thus proceeding is concurrence; the concurrence of causes is the result of this only, and not of any conscious being,—such is the meaning of the aphorism. To exemplify this. A germ, caused by a seed, is generated by the concurrence of six elements. Of these, earth as an element produces hardness and smell in the germ; water as an element produces viscidity and moisture; light as an element produces colour and warmth; air as an element produces touch and motion; ether as an element produces expansion and sound; the season as an element produces a fitting soil, &c. The aphorism comprising the aggregate determined by causation is: "With the Tathágatas the nature of these conditions is fixed by production, or by non-production; there is continuance as a condition, and determination by a condition, and conformity of the production to the cause;" that is to say, according to the doctrine of the Tathágata Buddhas, the nature of these conditions, that is, the causal relation between the cause and effect, results from production or from non-production. That which comes into being, provided that something exists, is the effect of that as its cause; such is the explanation of the nature (or causal relation). Continuance as a condition is where the effect is not found without its cause. The (abstract) affix tal (in the word sthititā) has the sense of the concrete. Determination by a condition is the determination of the effect by the cause. Here some one might interpose the remark that the relation of cause and effect cannot exist apart from some conscious agent. For this reason it is added that there existing a cause, conformity of the genesis to that cause is the nature which is fixed in conditions (that is, in causes and[32] effects); and in all this no intelligent designer is observed.[37] To illustrate this, the causal determination of a genesis to be gone through is as follows:—From the seed the germ, from the germ the stalk, from the stalk the hollow stem, from the hollow stem the bud, from the bud the spicules, from the spicules the blossom, from the blossom the fruit. In this external aggregate neither the cause, the seed and the rest, nor the effect, the germ and the rest, has any consciousness of bringing a germ into being, or of being brought into being by the seed. In like manner in mental facts two causes are to be recognised. There is a whole ocean of scientific matter before us, but we desist, apprehensive of making our treatise unduly prolix.

Emancipation is the suppression of these two causal aggregates, or the rise of pure cognition subsequent to such suppression. The method (path, road) is the mode of suppressing them. And this method is the knowledge of the principles, and this knowledge accrues from former ideas. Such is the highest mystery. The name Sautrántika arose from the fact that the venerated Buddha said to certain of his disciples who asked what was the ultimate purport (anta) of the aphorism (sútra), "As you have inquired the final purport of the aphorism, be Sautrántikas."

Certain Bauddhas, though there exist the external world, consisting of odours, &c., and the internal, consisting of colours, &c., in order to produce unbelief in these, declared the universe to be a void. These the venerated Buddha styled Práthamika (primary) disciples. A second school, attached to the apprehension of sensations only, maintain that sensation is the only reality. A third school, who [33]contend that both are true (the internal and the external), and maintain that sensible objects are inferrible. Others hold all this to be absurd language (viruddhá bháshá), and are known under the designation of Vaibháshikas. Their technical language springs up as follows:—According to the doctrine of inferrible sensibles, there being no perceptible object, and consequently no object from which a universal rule can be attained, it will be impossible that any illation should take place, and therefore a contradiction will emerge to the consciousness of all mankind. Objects, therefore, are of two kinds, sensible and cogitable. Of these apprehension is a non-discriminative instrument of knowledge as other than mere representation; cognition which is discriminative is not a form of evidence, as being a merely ideal cognition. Therefore it has been said—

Here some one may say: If discriminative cognition be unauthentic, how is the apprehension of real objects by one energising thereon and the universal consentiency of mankind to be accounted for? Let it be replied: This question does not concern us, for these may be accounted for by the possibility of an indirect apprehension of objects, just as if we suppose the light of a gem to be a gem (we may yet handle the gem, because it underlies the light, while if we were to take nacre for silver, we could not lay hold of any silver). The rest has been fully discussed in describing the Sautrántikas (cf. p. 27), and therefore need not here be further detailed.

It should not be contended that a diversity of instruction[34] according to the disciples' modes of thought is not traditional (or orthodox); for it is said in the gloss on the Bodha-chitta—

It is well known in Buddhist doctrine that the worship of the twelve inner seats (áyatana) is conducive to felicity.

The system of the Buddhists is described as follows in the Viveka-vilása:—

A. E. G.

[36]

CHAPTER III.

THE ÁRHATA SYSTEM.

The Gymnosophists[40] (Jainas), rejecting these opinions of the Muktakachchhas,[41] and maintaining continued existence to a certain extent, overthrow the doctrine of the momentariness of everything. (They say): If no continuing soul is accepted, then even the arrangement of the means for attaining worldly fruit in this life will be useless. But surely this can never be imagined as possible—that one should act and another reap the consequences! Therefore as this conviction, "I who previously did the deed, am the person who now reap its consequences," establishes undoubtedly the existence of a continuing soul, which remains constant through the previous and the subsequent period, the discriminating Jaina Arhats reject as untenable the doctrine of momentary existence, i.e., an existence which lasts only an instant, and has no previous or subsequent part.

But the opponent may maintain, "The unbroken stream (of momentary sensations) has been fairly proved by argument, so who can prevent it? In this way, since our tenet has been demonstrated by the argument, 'whatever is, is momentary, &c.,' it follows that in each parallel line of successive experiences the previous consciousness is the agent and the subsequent one reaps the fruit. Nor may [37]you object that, 'if this were true, effects might extend beyond all bounds'—[i.e., A might act, and B receive the punishment]—because there is an essentially controlling relation in the very nature of cause and effect. Thus we see that when mango seeds, after being steeped in sweet juices, are planted in prepared soil, there is a definite certainty that sweetness will be found in the shoot, the stalk, the stem, the branches, the peduncle, &c., and so on by an unbroken series to the fruit itself; or again, when cotton seeds have been sprinkled with lac juice, there will be a similar certainty of finding, through the same series of shoot, &c., an ultimate redness in the cotton. As it has been said—

But all this is only a drowning man's catching at a straw, for it is overthrown by the following dilemma:—

In the example of the "cloud," &c. [supra, p. 15], was your favourite "momentariness" proved by this very proof or by some other? It could not be the former, because your alleged momentariness is not always directly visible in the cloud, and consequently, as your example is not an ascertained fact, your supposed inference falls to the ground. Nor can it be the latter—because you might always prove your doctrine of momentariness by this new proof (if you had it), and consequently your argument regarding all existence ["whatever is, is momentary," &c.] would become needless. If you take as your definition of "existence" "that which produces an effect," this will not hold, as it would include even the bite of a snake imagined in the rope, since this undoubtedly produces the[38] effect [of fear]. Hence it has been said that the definition of an existence is "that which possesses an origin, an end, and an [intermediate] duration."

As for what was said [in p. 16] that "the momentariness of objects is proved by the fact that the contrary assumption leads to contradictory attributes of capacity and want of capacity existing contemporaneously," that also is wrong—for the alleged contradiction is not proved, as the holders of the Syád-váda[42] doctrine [vide infra] willingly admit the indeterminateness of the action of causes. As for what was said of the example of the cotton, that is only mere words, since no proof is given, and we do not accept even in that instance a separate destruction [at each moment]. And again, your supposed continued series cannot be demonstrated without some subject to give it coherence, as has been said, "In individual things which are of the same class or successively produced or in mutual contact, there may be a continued series; and this series is held to be one [throughout all"].

Nor is our objection obviated by your supposed definite relation between causes and effects. For even on your own admission it would follow that something experienced by the teacher's mind might be remembered by that of the pupil whom he had formed, or the latter might experience the fruits of merit which the former had acquired; and thus we should have the twofold fault that the thing done passed away without result, and that the fruit of the thing not done was enjoyed. This has been said by the author of the Siddhasenávákya—

"The loss of the thing done,—the enjoyment of the fruit of a thing not done,—the dissolution of all existence,—and the abolition of memory,—bold indeed is the Buddhist antagonist, when, in the teeth of these four objections, he seeks to establish his doctrine of momentary destruction!"[39]

Moreover, (on your supposition of momentary existence), as at the time of the perception (the second moment) the object (of the first moment) does not exist, and similarly at the time of the object's existence the perception does not exist, there can be no such things as a perceiver and a thing perceived, and consequently the whole course of the world would come to an end. Nor may you suppose that the object and the perception are simultaneous, because this would imply that, like the two horns of an animal, they did not stand in the relation of cause and effect [as this relation necessarily involves succession], and consequently the Álambana, or the object's data [supra, p. 29], would be abolished as one of the four concurrent causes (pratyaya).[43]

If you say that "the object may still be perceived, inasmuch as it will impress its form on the perception, even though the one may have existed in a different moment from the other," this too will not hold. For if you maintain that the knowledge acquired by perception has a certain form impressed upon it, you are met by the impossibility of explaining how a momentary perception can possess the power of impressing a form; and if you say that it has no form impressed upon it, you are equally met by the fact that, if we are to avoid incongruity, there must be some definite condition to determine the perception and knowledge in each several case. Thus by perception the abstract consciousness, which before existed uninfluenced by the external object, becomes modified under the form of a jar, &c., with a definite reference to each man's personality [i.e., I see the jar], and it is not merely the passive recipient of a reflection like a mirror. Moreover, if the perception only reproduced the form of the object, there would be an end of using such words as "far," "near," &c., of the objects.[44] Nor can you accept this conclusion, "as exactly in accordance with your own [40]views," because, in spite of all our logic, the stubborn fact remains that we do use such phrases as "the mountain is nearer" or "further," "long" or "large." Nor may you say that "it is the object (which supplies the form) that really possesses these qualities of being 'further,' &c., and they are applied by a fashion of speech to the perception [though not really belonging to it]"—because we do not find that this is the case in a mirror [i.e., it does not become a far reflection because it represents a far object.] And again, as the perception produced by an object follows it in assuming the form of blue, so too, if the object be insentient, it ought equally to assume its form and so become itself insentient. And thus, according to the proverb, "wishing to grow, you have destroyed your root," and your cause has fallen into hopeless difficulties.

If, in your wish to escape this difficulty, you assert that "the perception does not follow the object in being insentient," then there would be no perception that the object is insentient,[45] and so it is a case of the proverb, "While he looks for one thing which he has lost, another drops." "But what harm will it be if there is no perception of a thing's being insentient?" [We reply], that if its being insentient is not perceived, while its blue form is perceived, the two may be quite distinct [and as different from each other as a jar and cloth], or it may be a case of "indeterminateness" [so that the two may be only occasionally found together, as smoke with fire]. And again, if insentience is not perceived contemporaneously with the blue form, how could there then be conformity between them [so that both the blue and the insentience should together constitute the character of the thing?] We might just as well maintain that, on perceiving a post, the unperceived universe entered into it as also constituting its character.[46]

[41]

All this collection of topics for proof has been discussed at full length by the Jaina authors, Pratápachandra and others, in the Prameyakamalamártaṇḍa, &c., and is here omitted for fear of swelling the book too much.

Therefore those who wish for the summum bonum of man must not accept the doctrine of Buddha, but rather honour only the Árhata doctrine. The Arhat's nature has been thus described by Arhachchandra-súri,[47] in his Áptaniśchayálaṅkára.

"The divine Arhat is the supreme lord, the omniscient one, who has overcome all faults, desire, &c.,—adored by the three worlds, the declarer of things as they are."

But may it not be objected that no such omniscient soul can enter the path of proof, since none of the five affirmative proofs can be found to apply, as has been declared by Tautátita [Bhaṭṭa Kumárila[48]]?

1. "No omniscient being is seen by the sense here in this world by ourselves or others; nor is there any part of him seen which might help us as a sign to infer his existence.

2. "Nor is there any injunction (vidhi) of scripture which reveals an eternal omniscient one, nor can the meaning of the explanatory passages (arthaváda) be applied here.

3. "His existence is not declared by those passages which refer to quite other topics; and it cannot be contained in any emphatic repetitions (anuváda), as it had never been mentioned elsewhere before.

4. "An omniscient being who had a beginning can never be the subject of the eternal Veda; and how can he be established by a made and spurious Veda?

5. "Do you say that this omniscient one is accepted on [42]his own word? How can you establish either when they thus both depend on reciprocal support?

6. "[If you say,] 'The saying is true because it was uttered by one omniscient, and this proves the Arhat's existence;' how can either point be established without some previously established foundation?

7. "But they who accept a [supposed] omniscient on the baseless word of a parviscient know nothing of the meaning of a real omniscient's words.

8. "And again, if we now could see anything like an omniscient being, we might have a chance of recognising him by the [well-known fourth] proof, comparison (upamána).

9. "And the teaching of Buddha [as well as that of Jina], which embraces virtue, vice, &c., would not be established as authoritative, if there were not in him the attribute of omniscience,[49] and so on."

We reply as follows:—As for the supposed contradiction of an Arhat's existence, derived from the failure of the five affirmative proofs,—this is untenable, because there are proofs, as inference, &c., which do establish[50] his existence. Thus any soul will become omniscient when, (its natural capacity for grasping all objects remaining the same), the hindrances to such knowledge are done away. Whatever thing has a natural capacity for knowing any object, will, when its hindrances to such knowledge are done away, actually know it, just as the sense of vision cognises form, directly the hindrances of darkness, &c., are removed. Now there is such a soul, which has its hindrances done away, its natural capacity for grasping [43]all things remaining unchanged; therefore there is an omniscient being. Nor is the assertion unestablished that the soul has a natural capacity for grasping all things; for otherwise the Mímáṃsist could not maintain that a knowledge of all possible cases can be produced by the authoritative injunction of a text,[51]—nor could there otherwise be the knowledge of universal propositions, such as that in our favourite argument, "All things are indeterminate from the very fact of their existence" [and, of course, a follower of the Nyáya will grant that universal propositions can be known, though he will dispute the truth of this particular one]. Now it is clear that the teachers of the Púrva Mímáṃsá accept the thesis that the soul has a natural capacity for grasping all things; since they allow that a knowledge embracing all things can be produced by the discussion of injunctions and prohibitions, as is said [by Śabara in his commentary on the Sútras, i. 1, 2], "A precept makes known the past, the present, the future, the minute, the obstructed, the distant, &c." Nor can you say that "it is impossible to destroy the obstructions which hinder the soul's knowing all things," because we [Jainas] are convinced that there are certain special means to destroy these obstructions, viz., the three ["gems"], right intuition, &c. By this charm also, all inferior assaults of argument can be put to flight.

But the Naiyáyika may interpose, "You talk of the pure intelligence, which, after all hindrances are done away, sees all objects, having sense-perception at its height; but this is irrelevant, because there can be no hindrance to the omniscient, as from all eternity he has been always liberated." We reply that there is no proof of your eternally liberated being. There cannot be an omniscient who is eternally "liberated," from the very fact of his being "liberated," like other liberated persons,—since the use of the term "liberated" necessarily [44]implies the having been previously bound; and if the latter is absent, the former must be too, as is seen in the case of the ether. "But is not this being's existence definitely proved by his being the maker of that eternal series of effects, the earth, &c.? according to the well-known argument, 'the earth, &c., must have had a maker, because they have the nature of effects, as a jar.'" This argument, however, will not hold, because you cannot prove that they have the nature of effects. You cannot establish this from the fact of their being composed of parts, because this supposition falls upon the horns of a dilemma. Does this "being composed of parts" mean (i.) the being in contact with the parts; or (ii.) "the being in intimate relation to the parts; or (iii.) the being produced from parts;" or (iv.) the being a substance in intimate relation; or (v.) the being the object of an idea involving the notion of parts?

Not the first, because it would apply too widely, as it would include ether [since this, though not itself composed of parts, is in contact with the parts of other things;] nor the second, because it would similarly include genus, &c. [as this resides in a substance by intimate relation, and yet itself is not composed of parts;] nor the third, because this involves a term ("produced") just as much disputed as the one directly in question;[52] nor the fourth, because its neck is caught in the pillory of the following alternative:—Do you mean by your phrase used above that it is to be a substance, and to have something else in intimate relation to itself,—or do you mean that it must have intimate relation to something else, in order to be valid for your argument? If you say the former, it will equally apply to ether, since this is a substance, and has its qualities resident in it by intimate relation; if you say the latter, your new position involves as much dispute as the original point, since you would have to prove the existence of intimate relation in the parts, or the so-called [45]"intimate causes," which you mean by "something else." We use these terms in compliance with your terminology; but, of course, from our point of view, we do not allow such a thing as "intimate relation," as there is no proof of its existence.

Nor can the fifth alternative be allowed, because this would reach too far, as it would include soul, &c., since soul can be the object of an idea involving the notion of parts, and yet it is acknowledged to be not an effect.[53] Nor can you maintain that the soul may still be indiscerptible in itself, but by reason of its connection with something possessing parts may itself become metaphorically the object of an idea involving the notion of parts, because there is a mutual contradiction in the idea of that which has no parts and that which is all-pervading, just as the atom [which is indiscerptible but not all-pervading].

And, moreover, is there only one maker? Or, again, is he independent?

In the former case your position will apply too far, as it will extend erroneously to palaces, &c., where we see for ourselves the work of many different men, as carpenters, &c., and [in the second case] if all the world were produced by this one maker, all other agents would be superfluous. As it has been said in the Vítarágastuti, or "Praise of Jina"—

1. "There is one eternal maker for the world, all-pervading, independent, and true; they have none of these inextricable delusions, whose teacher art thou."

And again—

2. "There is here no maker acting by his own free will, else his influence would extend to the making of a mat. What would be the use of yourself or all the artisans, if Íśwara fabricates the three worlds?"[46]

Therefore it is right to hold, as we do, that omniscience is produced when the hindrances are removed by the three means before alluded to.

Nor need the objection be made that "right intuition," &c., are impossible, as there is no other teacher to go to,—because this universal knowledge can be produced by the inspired works of former omniscient Jinas. Nor is our doctrine liable to the imputation of such faults as Anyonyáśrayatá,[54] &c., because we accept an eternal succession of revealed doctrines and omniscient teachers, like the endless series of seed springing from shoot and shoot from seed. So much for this preliminary discussion.

The well-known triad called the three gems, right intuition, &c., are thus described in the Paramágamasára (which is devoted to the exposition of the doctrines of the Arhats)—"Right intuition, right knowledge, right conduct are the path of liberation." This has been thus explained by Yogadeva:—

(a.) When the meaning of the predicaments, the soul, &c., has been declared by an Arhat in exact accordance with their reality, absolute faith in the teaching, i.e., the entire absence of any contrary idea, is "right intuition." And to this effect runs the Tattvártha-sútra, "Faith in the predicaments[55] is right 'intuition.'" Or, as another definition gives it, "Acquiescence in the predicaments declared by a Jina is called 'right faith;' it is produced either by natural character or by the guru's instruction." "Natural character" means the soul's own nature, independent of another's teaching; "instruction" is the knowledge produced by the teaching of another in the form of explanation, &c.

(b.) "Right knowledge" is a knowledge of the predicaments, soul, &c., according to their real nature, undisturbed by any illusion or doubt; as it has been said—

[47]

"That knowledge, which embraces concisely or in detail the predicaments as they actually are, is called 'right knowledge' by the wise."

This knowledge is fivefold as divided into mati, śruta, avadhi, manas-paryáya, and kevala; as it has been said, "Mati, śruta, avadhi, manas-paryáya, and kevala, these are knowledge." The meaning of this is as follows:—

1. Mati is that by which one cognises an object through the operation of the senses and the mind, all obstructions of knowledge being abolished.

2. Śruta is the clear knowledge produced by mati, all the obstructions of knowledge being abolished.

3. Avadhi is the knowledge of special objects caused by the abolition of hindrances, which is effected by "right intuition," &c.[56]

4. Manas-paryáya is the clear definite knowledge of another's thoughts, produced by the abolition of all the obstructions of knowledge caused by the veil of envy.

5. Kevala is that pure unalloyed knowledge for the sake of which ascetics practise various kinds of penance.

The first of these (mati) is not self-cognised, the other four are. Thus it has been said—

"True knowledge is a proof which nothing can overthrow, and which manifests itself as well as its object; it is both supersensuous and itself an object of cognition, as the object is determined in two ways."

But the full account of the further minute divisions must be got from the authoritative treatise above-mentioned.

(c.) "Right conduct" is the abstaining from all actions tending to evil courses by one who possesses faith and knowledge, and who is diligent in cutting off the series of actions and their effects which constitutes mundane existence. This has been explained at length by the Arhat—

1. "Right conduct is described as the entire relinquishment [48]of blamable impulses; this has been subjected to a fivefold division, as the 'five vows,' ahiṃsá, súnṛita, asteya, brahmacharyá, and aparigraha.[57]

2. "The 'vow' of ahiṃsá is the avoidance of injuring life by any act of thoughtlessness in any movable or immovable thing.

3. "A kind, salutary, and truthful speech is called the 'vow' of súnṛita. That truthful speech is not truthful, which is unkind to others and prejudicial.

4. "The not taking what is not given is declared to be the 'vow' of asteya; the external life is a man's property, and, when it is killed, it is killed by some one who seizes it.

5. "The 'vow' of brahmacharyá (chastity) is eighteen-fold, viz., the abandonment of all desires,[58] heavenly or earthly, in thought, word, and deed, and whether by one's own action or by one's consent, or by one's causing another to act.

6. "The 'vow' of aparigraha is the renouncing of all delusive interest in everything that exists not; since bewilderment of thought may arise from a delusive interest even in the unreal.

7. "When carried out by the five states of mind in a fivefold order, these great 'vows' of the world produce the eternal abode."

The full account of the five states of mind (bhávaná) has been given in the following passage [of which we only quote one śloka]—

"Let him carry out the 'vow' of súnṛita uninterruptedly by the abstinence from laughter, greed, fear, and anger, and by the deliberate avoidance of speech,"[59]—and so forth.

These three, right intuition, right knowledge, and right conduct, when united, produce liberation, but not severally; just as, in the case of an elixir, it is the knowledge of [49]what it is, faith in its virtues, and the actual application of the medicine,[60] united, which produce the elixir's effect, but not severally.

Here we may say concisely that the tattvas or predicaments are two, jíva and ajíva; the soul, jíva, is pure intelligence; the non-soul, ajíva, is pure non-intelligence. Padmanandin has thus said—

"The two highest predicaments are 'soul' and 'non-soul;' 'discrimination' is the power of discriminating these two, in one who pursues what is to be pursued, and rejects what is to be rejected. The affection, &c., of the agent are to be rejected; these are objects for the non-discriminating; the supreme light [of knowledge] is alone to be pursued, which is defined as upayoga."

Upayoga [or "the true employment of the soul's activities"] takes place when the vision of true knowledge recognises the manifestation of the soul's innate nature; but as long as the soul, by the bond of pradeśa and the mutual interpenetration of form which it produces [between the soul and the body], considers itself as identified with its actions [and the body which they produce], knowledge should rather be defined as "the cause of its recognising that it is other than these."[61]

Intelligence (chaitanya) is common to all souls, and is the real nature of the soul viewed as pariṇata [i.e., as it is in itself]; but by the influence of upaśamakshaya and kshayopaśama it appears in the "mixed" form as possessing both,[62] or again, by the influence of actions as they arise, it assumes the appearance of foulness, &c.[63] As has been said by Váchakáchárya [in a sútra]—

[50]

"The aupaśamika, the Ksháyika, and the 'mixed' states are the nature of the soul, and also the audayika and the Páriṇámika."

1. The aupaśamika state of the soul arises when all the effects of past actions have ceased, and no new actions arise [to affect the future], as when water becomes temporarily pure through the defiling mud sinking to the bottom by the influence of the clearing nut-plant,[64] &c.

2. The Ksháyika state arises when there is the absolute abolition of actions and their effects, as in final liberation.

3. The "mixed" (miśra) state combines both these, as when water is partly pure.

4. The audayika state is when actions arise [exerting an inherent influence on the future]. The Páriṇámika state is the soul's innate condition, as pure intelligence, &c., and disregarding its apparent states, as (1), (2), (3), (4).[65] This nature, in one of the above-described varieties, is the character of every soul whether happy or unhappy. This is the meaning of the sútra quoted above.

This has been explained in the Svarúpa-sambodhana—

"Not different from knowledge, and yet not identical with it,—in some way both different and the same,—knowledge is its first and last; such is the soul described to be."

If you say that, "As difference and identity are mutually exclusive, we must have one or the other in the case of the soul, and its being equally both is absurd," we reply, that there is no evidence to support you when you characterise it as absurd. Only a valid non-perception[66] can thus preclude a suggestion as absurd; but this is not found in the present case, since (in the opinion of us, the advocates of the Syád-váda) it is perfectly notorious that all things present a mingled nature of many contradictory attributes.

[51]

Others lay down a different set of tattvas from the two mentioned above, jíva and ajíva; they hold that there are five astikáyas or categories,—jíva, ákáśa, dharma, adharma, and pudgala. To all these five we can apply the idea of "existence" (asti),[67] as connected with the three divisions of time, and we can similarly apply the idea of "body" (káya),[68] from their occupying several parts of space.

The jívas (souls) are divided into two, the "mundane" and the "released." The "mundane" pass from birth to birth; and these are also divided into two, as those possessing an internal sense (samanaska), and those destitute of it (amanaska). The former possesses saṃjñá, i.e., the power of apprehension, talking, acting, and receiving instruction; the latter are those without this power. These latter are also divided into two, as "locomotive" (trasa), or "immovable" (sthávara).

The "locomotive" are those possessing at least two senses [touch and taste], as shell-fish, worms, &c., and are thus of four kinds [as possessing two, three, four, or five senses]; the "immovable" are earth, water, fire, air, and trees.[69] But here a distinction must be made. The dust of the road is properly "earth," but bricks, &c., are aggregated "bodies of earth," and that soul by whom this body is appropriated becomes "earthen-bodied," and that soul which will hereafter appropriate it is the "earth-soul." The same four divisions must also be applied to the others, water, &c. Now the souls which have appropriated or will appropriate the earth, &c., as their bodies, are reckoned as "immovable;" but earth, &c., and the "bodies of earth," &c., are not so reckoned, because they are inanimate.[70] These other immovable things, and such as only possess [52]the one sense of touch, are considered as "released," since they are incapable of passing into any other state of existence.

Dharma, adharma, and ákáśa are singular categories [and not generic], and they have not the attribute of "action," but they are the causes of a substance's change of place.

Dharma, "merit," and adharma, "demerit," are well known. They assist souls in progressing or remaining stationary in the universally extended[71] sky [or ether] characterised by light, and also called Lokákáśa; hence the presence of the category "merit" is to be inferred from progress, that of "demerit" from stationariness. The effect of ákáśa is seen when one thing enters into the space previously occupied by another.

Pudgala, "body," possesses touch, taste, and colour. Bodies are of two kinds, atomic and compound. Atoms cannot be enjoyed;[72] the compounds are the binary and other combinations. Atoms are produced by the separation of these binary and other compounds, while these arise from the conjunction of atoms. Compounds sometimes arise from separation and conjunction [combined]; hence they are called pudgalas, because they "fill" (púr), and "dissolve" (gal). Although "time" is not properly an astikáya, because it does not occupy many separate parts of space [as mentioned in the definition], still it is a dravya [or tattva], as the definition will hold; "substance" (dravya) possesses "qualities and action."[73] Qualities reside [53]in substance but do not themselves possess qualities, as the general qualities, knowledge, &c., of the jíva, form, &c., of the body, and the power of causing progress, stationariness, and motion into a place previously occupied, in the case respectively of "merit," "demerit," and ákáśa. "Action" (paryáya) has thus been defined; the actions (paryáyáḥ) of a substance are, as has been said, its existence, its production, its being what it is, its development, its course to the end, as, e.g., in the jíva, the knowledge of objects, as of a jar, &c., happiness, pain, &c.; in the pudgala, the lump of clay, the jar, &c.; in merit and demerit, the special functions of progress, &c. Thus there are six substances or tattvas [i.e., the five above mentioned and "time"].

Others reckon the tattvas as seven, as has been said—

"The tattvas are jíva, ajíva, ásrava, bandha, saṃvara, nirjará, and moksha." Jíva and ajíva have been already described. Ásrava is described as the movement of the soul called yoga,[74] through its participation in the movement of its various bodies, audárika, &c. As a door opening into the water is called ásrava, because it causes the stream to descend through it,[75] so this yoga is called ásrava, because by it as by a pipe actions and their consequences flow in upon the soul. Or, as a wet garment collects the dust brought to it from every side by the wind, so the soul, wet with previous sins, collects, by its manifold points of contact with the body, the actions which are brought to it by yoga. Or as, when water is thrown on a heated lump of iron, the iron absorbs the water altogether, so the jíva, heated by previous sins, receives from every side the actions which are brought by yoga. Kasháya ("sin," "defilement") is so called because it "hurts" (kash) the soul by leading it into evil states; it comprises anger, pride, delusion, and lust. Ásrava is twofold, as good or evil. Thus abstaining from doing injury is a good yoga of the [54]body; speaking what is true, measured, and profitable is a good yoga of the speech.

These various subdivisions of ásrava have been described at length in several Sútras. "Ásrava is the impulse to action with body, speech, or mind, and it is good or evil as it produces merit or demerit," &c. Others, however, explain it thus:—"Ásrava is the action of the senses which impels the soul towards external objects; the light of the soul, coming in contact with external objects by means of the senses, becomes developed as the knowledge of form, &c."[76]

Bandha, "bondage," is when the soul, by the influence of "false intuition," "non-indifference," "carelessness," and "sin" (kasháya), and also by the force of yoga, assumes various bodies occupying many parts of space, which enter into its own subtile body, and which are suited to the bond of its previous actions. As has been said—

In this quotation the word "sin" (kasháya) is used to include the other three causes of bondage as well as that properly so termed. Váchakáchárya has thus enumerated the causes of bondage: "The causes of bondage are false intuition, non-indifference, carelessness, and sin."

(a) "False intuition" is twofold,—either innate from one's natural character, as when one disbelieves Jaina doctrines from the influence of former evil actions, irrespectively of another's teaching,—or derived, when learned by another's teaching.

(b) "Non-indifference" is the non-restraint of the five senses, and the internal organ from the set of six, earth, &c.

(c) "Carelessness" (pramáda) is a want of effort to practise the five kinds of samiti, gupti, [55]&c.

(d) "Sin" consists of anger, &c. Here we must make the distinction that the four things, false intuition, &c., cause those kinds of bondage called sthiti and anubháva; yoga [or ásrava] causes those kinds called prakṛiti and pradeśa.

"Bondage" is fourfold, as has been said: "Prakṛiti, sthiti, anubháva, and pradeśa are its four kinds."

1. Prakṛiti means "the natural qualities," as bitterness or sweetness in the vimba plant or molasses. This may be subdivided into eight múla-prakṛitis.[77]

Thus obstructions (ávaraṇa)[78] cloud the knowledge and intuition, as a cloud obscures the sun or a shade the lamp. This is (a) jnánávaraṇa, or (b) darśanávaraṇa. (c) An object recognised as simultaneously existing or non-existing produces mingled pleasure and pain, as licking honey from a sword's edge,—this is vedaníya. (d) A delusion (mohaníya) in intuition produces want of faith in the Jaina categories, like association with the wicked; delusion in conduct produces want of self-restraint, like intoxication. (e) Áyus produces the bond of body, like a snare.[79] (f) Náman, or "the name," produces various individual appellations, as a painter paints his different pictures. (g) Gotra produces the idea of noble and ignoble, as the potter fashions his pots. (h) Antaráya produces obstacles to liberality, &c., as the treasurer hinders the king by considerations of economy.

Thus is the prakṛiti-bandha eightfold, being denominated as the eight múla-prakṛitis, with subdivisions according to the different actions of the various subject-matter.

And thus has Umáswáti-váchakáchárya[80] declared: "The first kind of bandha consists of obstructions of the knowledge and the intuition, vedaníya, mohaníya, áyus, náman, [56]gotra, and antaráya;" and he has also reckoned up the respective subdivisions of each as five, nine, twenty-eight, four, two, forty, two, and fifteen. All this has been explained at full length in the Vidyánanda and other works, and here is omitted through fear of prolixity.

2. Sthiti. As the milk of the goat, cow, buffalo, &c., have continued unswerving from their sweet nature for so long a period, so the first three múla-prakṛitis, jnánávaraṇa, &c., and the last, antaráya, have not swerved from their respective natures even through the period described in the words, "sthiti lasts beyonds crores of crores of periods of time measured by thirty ságaropamas."[81] This continuance is sthiti.

3. Anubháva. As in the milk of goats, cows, buffaloes, &c., there exists, by its rich or poor nature, a special capacity for producing[82] its several effects, so in the different material bodies produced by our actions there exists a special capacity (anubháva) for producing their respective effects.

4. Pradeśa. The bandha called pradeśa is the entrance into the different parts of the soul by the masses, made up of an endless number of parts, of the various bodies which are developed by the consequences of actions.

Saṃvara is the stopping of ásrava—that by which the influence of past actions (karman) is stopped from entering into the soul. It is divided into gupti, samiti, &c. Gupti is the withdrawal of the soul from that "impulse" (yoga) which causes mundane existence,—it is threefold, as relating to body, speech, or mind. Samiti is the acting so as to avoid injury to all living beings. This is divided into five kinds, as íryá,[83] bháshá, &c., as has been explained by Hemachandra.

[57]

1. "In a public highway, kissed by the sun's rays, to walk circumspectly so as to avoid injuring living beings, this the good call íryá.

2. "Let him practise[84] a measured utterance in his intercourse with all people; this is called bháshá-samiti, dear to the restrainers of speech.

3. "The food which the sage takes, ever free from the forty-two faults which may accrue to alms, is called the eshaṇá-samiti.[85]

4. "Carefully looking at it and carefully seating himself upon it, let him take a seat, &c., set it down, and meditate,—this is called the ádána-samiti.

5. "That the good man should carefully perform his bodily evacuations in a spot free from all living creatures,[86]—this is the utsarga-samiti.[87] Hence samvara has been etymologically analysed as that which closes (sam + vṛiṇoti) the door of the stream of ásrava,[88] as has been said by the learned, 'Ásrava is the cause of mundane existence, saṃvara is the cause of liberation;[89] this is the Árhat doctrine in a handful; all else is only the amplification of this.'"

Nirjará is the causing the fruit of past actions to decay by self-mortification, &c.; it destroys by the body the merit and demerit of all the previously performed actions, and the resulting happiness and misery; "self-mortification" means the plucking out of the hair, &c. This nirjará is twofold,[90] "temporary" (yathákála) and ancillary (aupakramaṇika). It is "temporary" as when a desire is dormant in consequence of the action having produced its fruit, and at that particular time, from this completion of [58]the object aimed at, nirjará arises, being caused by the consumption of the desire, &c. But when, by the force of asceticism, the sage turns all actions into means for attaining his end (liberation), this is the nirjará of actions. Thus it has been said: "From the decaying of the actions which are the seeds of mundane existence, nirjará arises, which is twofold, sakámá and akámá. That called sakámá belongs to ascetics, the akámá to other embodied spirits."[91]

Moksha. Since at the moment of its attainment there is an entire absence of all future actions, as all the causes of bondage (false perception, &c.) are stopped,[92] and since all past actions are abolished in the presence of the causes of nirjará, there arises the absolute release from all actions,—this is moksha; as it has been said: "Moksha is the absolute release from all actions by the decay (nirjará) of the causes of bondage and of existence."

Then the soul rises upward to the end of the world. As a potter's wheel, whirled by the stick and hands, moves on even after these have stopped, until the impulse is exhausted, so the previous repeated contemplations of the embodied soul for the attainment of moksha exert their influence even after they have ceased, and bear the soul onward to the end of the world; or, as the gourd, encased with clay, sinks in the water, but rises to the surface when freed from its encumbrance, so the soul, delivered from works, rises upward by its isolation,[93] from the bursting of its bonds like the elastic seed of the castor-oil plant, or by its own native tendency like the flame.

[59]

"Bondage" is the condition of being unseparated, with a mutual interpenetration of parts [between the soul and the body]; saṅga is merely mutual contact. This has been declared as follows:—

"[Liberation] is unhindered, from the continuance of former impulses, from the absence of saṅga, from the cutting of all bonds, and from the natural development of the soul's own powers of motion, like the potter's wheel, the gourd with its clay removed, the seed of the castor-oil plant, or the flame of fire."

Hence they recite a śloka:—

Others hold moksha to be the abiding in the highest regions, the soul being absorbed in bliss, with its knowledge unhindered and itself untainted by any pain or impression thereof.

Others hold nine tattwas, adding "merit" and "demerit" to the foregoing seven,—these two being the causes of pleasure and pain. This has been declared in the Siddhánta, "Jíva, ajíva, puṇya, pápa, ásrava, saṃvara, nirjaraṇa, bandha, and moksha, are the nine tattwas." As our object is only a summary, we desist here.

Here the Jainas everywhere introduce their favourite logic called the sapta-bhaṅgí-naya,[94] or the system of the seven paralogisms, "may be, it is," "may be, it is not," "may be, it is and it is not," "may be, it is not predicable," "may be, it is, and yet not predicable," "may be, it is not, and not predicable," "may be, it is and it is not, and not predicable." All this Anantavírya has thus laid down:—

1. "When you wish to establish a thing, the proper course is to say 'may be, it is;' when you wish to deny it, 'may be, it is not.'

2. "When you desire to establish each in turn, let your [60]procedure likewise embrace both; when you wish to establish both at once, let it be declared 'indescribable' from the impossibility to describe it.

3. "The fifth process is enjoined when you wish to establish the first as well as its indescribableness; when the second as well as its indescribableness, the occasion for the sixth process arises.

4. "The seventh is required when all three characters are to be employed simultaneously."

Syát, "may be," is here an indeclinable particle in the form of a part of a verb, used to convey the idea of indeterminateness; as it has been said—

If, again, the word syát denoted determinateness, then it would be needless in the phrase, "may be, it is;" but since it really denotes indeterminateness, "may be, it is," means "it is somehow;" syát, "may be," conveys the meaning of "somehow," kathaṃchit; and so it is not really useless. As one has said—

"The doctrine of the syád-váda arises from our everywhere rejecting the idea of the absolute;[95] it depends on the sapta-bhaṅgí-naya, and it lays down the distinction between what is to be avoided and to be accepted."

If a thing absolutely exists, it exists altogether, always, everywhere, and with everybody, and no one at any time or place would ever make an effort to obtain or avoid it, as it would be absurd to treat what is already present as an object to be obtained or avoided. But if it be relative (or indefinite), the wise will concede that at certain times and in certain places any one may seek or avoid it. Moreover, suppose that the question to be asked is this: "Is being or non-being the real nature of the thing?" The [61]real nature of the thing cannot be being, for then you could not properly use the phrase, "It is a pot" (ghaṭósti), as the two words "is" and "pot" would be tautological; nor ought you to say, "It is not a pot," as the words thus used would imply a direct contradiction; and the same argument is to be used in other questions.[96] As it has been declared—

The whole is thus to be summed up. Four classes of our opponents severally hold the doctrine of existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence successively, and the doctrine that everything is inexplicable (anirvachaníyatá);[97] three other classes hold one or other of the three first theories combined with the fourth.[98] Now, when they meet us with the scornful questions, "Does the thing exist?" &c., we have an answer always possible, "It exists in a certain way," &c., and our opponents are all abashed to silence, and victory accrues to the holder of the Syád-váda, which ascertains the entire meaning of all things. Thus said the teacher in the Syádváda-mañjarí—

"A thing of an entirely indeterminate nature is the object only of the omniscient; a thing partly determined is held to be the true object of scientific investigation.[99] When our reasonings based on one point proceed in the revealed way, it is called the revealed Syád-váda, which ascertains the entire meaning of all things."

"All other systems are full of jealousy from their mutual propositions and counter-propositions; it is only the doctrine of the Arhat which with no partiality equally favours all sects."

[62]

The Jaina doctrine has thus been summed up by Jinadatta-súri—

"The hindrances belonging to vigour, enjoyment, sensual pleasure, giving and receiving,—sleep, fear, ignorance, aversion, laughter, liking, disliking, love, hatred, want of indifference, desire, sorrow, deceit, these are the eighteen 'faults' (dosha) according to our system.[100] The divine Jina is our Guru, who declares the true knowledge of the tattwas. The path[101] of emancipation consists of knowledge, intuition, and conduct. There are two means of proof (pramáṇa) in the Syád-váda doctrine,—sense-perception and inference. All consists of the eternal and the non-eternal; there are nine or seven tattwas. The jíva, the ajíva, merit and demerit, ásrava, saṃvara, bandha, nirjará, mukti,—we will now explain each. Jíva is defined as intelligence; ajíva is all other than it; merit means bodies which arise from good actions, demerit the opposite; ásrava is the bondage of actions,[102] nirjará is the unloosing thereof; moksha arises from the destruction of the eight forms of karman or "action". But by some teachers "merit" is included in saṃvara,[103] and "demerit" in ásrava.

"Of the soul which has attained the four infinite things[104] and is hidden from the world, and whose eight actions are abolished, absolute liberation is declared by Jina. The Śwetámbaras are the destroyers of all defilement, they live by alms,[105] they pluck out their hair, they practise patience, they avoid all association, and are called the Jaina Sádhus. The Digambaras pluck out their hair, they [63]carry peacocks' tails in their hands, they drink from their hands, and they eat upright in the giver's house,—these are the second class of the Jaina Ṛishis.

"A woman attains not the highest knowledge, she enters not Mukti,—so say the Digambaras; but there is a great division on this point between them and the Śwetámbaras."[106]

E. B. C.

[64]

CHAPTER IV.

THE RÁMÁNUJA SYSTEM.

This doctrine of the Árhatas deserves a rational condemnation, for whereas there is only one thing really existent, the simultaneous co-existence of existence, non-existence and other modes in a plurality of really existing things is an impossibility. Nor should any one say: Granting the impossibility of the co-existence of existence and non-existence, which are reciprocally contradictory, why should there not be an alternation between existence and non-existence? there being the rule that it is action, not Ens, that alternates. Nor let it be supposed that the whole universe is multiform, in reliance upon the examples of the elephant-headed Gaṇeśa and of the incarnation of Vishṇu as half man, half lion; for the elephantine and the leonine nature existing in one part, and the human in another, and consequently there being no contradiction, those parts being different, these examples are inapplicable to the maintenance of a nature multiform as both existent and non-existent in one and the same part (or place). Again, if any one urge: Let there be existence in one form, and non-existence in another, and thus both will be compatible; we rejoin: Not so, for if you had said that at different times existence and non-existence may be the nature of anything, then indeed there would have been no vice in your procedure. Nor is it to be contended: Let the multiformity of the universe be like the length and shortness which pertain[65] to the same thing (in different relations); for in these (in this length and shortness) there is no contrariety, inasmuch as they are contrasted with different objects. Therefore, for want of evidence, existence and non-existence as reciprocally contradictory cannot reside at the same time in the same thing. In a like manner may be understood the refutation of the other bhaṅgas (Árhata tenets).

Again, we ask, is this doctrine of the seven bhaṅgas, which lies at the base of all this, itself uniform (as excluding one contradictory), or multiform (as conciliating contradictories). If it is uniform, there will emerge a contradiction to your thesis that all things are multiform; if it is multiform, you have not proved what you wished to prove, a multiform statement (as both existent and non-existent) proving nothing.[107] In either case, there is rope for a noose for the neck of the Syád-Vádin.

An admirable author of institutes has the founder of the Árhata system, dear to the gods (uninquiring pietist), proved himself to be, when he has not ascertained whether his result is the settling of nine or of seven principles, nor the investigator who settles them, nor his organon, the modes of evidence, nor the matter to be evidenced, whether it be ninefold or not!

In like manner if it be admitted that the soul has (as the Árhatas say), an extension equal to that of the body, it will follow that in the case of the souls of ascetics, who by the efficacy of asceticism assume a plurality of bodies, [66]there is a differentiation of the soul for each of those bodies. A soul of the size of a human body would not (in the course of its transmigrations) be able to occupy the whole body of an elephant; and again, when it laid aside its elephantine body to enter into that of an ant, it would lose its capacity of filling its former frame. And it cannot be supposed that the soul resides successively in the human, elephantine, and other bodies, like the light of a lamp which is capable of contraction and expansion, according as it occupies the interior of a little station on the road-side in which travellers are supplied with water, or the interior of a stately mansion; for it would follow (from such a supposition) that the soul being susceptible of modifications and consequently non-eternal, there would be a loss of merits and a fruition of good and evil unmerited.

As if then we had thrown their best wrestler, the redargution of the rest of their categories may be anticipated from this exposition of the manner in which their treatment of the soul has been vitiated.

Their doctrine, therefore, as repugnant to the eternal, infallible revelation, cannot be adopted. The venerated Vyása accordingly propounded the aphorism (ii. 2, 33), "Nay, because it is impossible in one;" and this same aphorism has been analysed by Rámánuja with the express purpose of shutting out the doctrine of the Jainas. The tenets of Rámánuja are as follows:—Three categories are established, as soul, not-soul, and Lord; or as subject, object, and supreme disposer. Thus it has been said—

Others, again (the followers of Śaṅkaráchárya), maintain that pure intelligence, exempt from all differences, the absolute, alone is really existent; and that this absolute[67] whose essence is eternal, pure, intelligent, and free, the identity of which with the individuated spirit is learnt from the "reference to the same object" (predication), "That art thou," undergoes bondage and emancipation. The universe of differences (or conditions) such as that of subject and object, is all illusorily imagined by illusion as in that (one reality), as is attested by a number of texts: Existent only, fair sir, was this in the beginning, One only without a second, and so forth. Maintaining this, and acknowledging a suppression of this beginningless illusion by knowledge of the unity (and identity) of individuated spirits and the undifferenced absolute, in conformity with hundreds of texts from the Upanishads, such as He that knows spirit passes beyond sorrow; rejecting also any real plurality of things, in conformity with the text condemnatory of duality, viz., Death after death he undergoes who looks upon this as manifold; and thinking themselves very wise, the Śáṅkaras will not tolerate this division (viz., the distribution of things into soul, not-soul, and Lord). To all this the following counterposition is laid down:—This might be all well enough if there were any proof of such illusion. But there is no such ignorance (or illusion), an unbeginning entity, suppressible by knowledge, testified in the perceptions, I am ignorant, I know not myself and other things. Thus it has been said (to explain the views of the Śáṅkara)—

This perception (they would further contend) is not conversant about the absence of knowledge. For who can maintain this, and to whom? One who leans on the arm of Prabhákara, or one to whom Kumárila-bhaṭṭa gives his hand? Not the former, for in the words—

They deny any non-entity ulterior to entity. Non-entity being cognisable by the sixth instrument of knowledge (anupalabdhi), and knowledge being always an object of inference, the absence of knowledge cannot be an object of perception. If, again, any one who maintains non-entity to be perceptible should employ the above argument (from the perceptions, I am ignorant, I know not myself, and other things); it may be replied: "Is there, or is there not, in the consciousness, I am ignorant, an apprehension of self as characterised by an absence, and of knowledge as the thing absent or non-existent? If there is such apprehension, consciousness of the absence of knowledge will be impossible, as involving a contradiction. If there is not, consciousness of the absence of knowledge, which consciousness presupposes a knowledge of the subject and of the thing absent, will not readily become possible." Inasmuch (the Śáṅkaras continue) as the foregoing difficulties do not occur if ignorance (or illusion) be entitative, this consciousness (I am ignorant, I know not myself, and other things) must be admitted to be conversant about an entitative ignorance.

All this (the Rámánuja replies) is about as profitable as it would be for a ruminant animal to ruminate upon ether; for an entitative ignorance is not more supposable than an absence of knowledge. For (we would ask), is any self-conscious principle presented as an object and as a subject (of ignorance) as distinct from cognition? If it is presented, how, since ignorance of a thing is terminable by knowledge of its essence, can the ignorance continue? If none such is presented, how can we be conscious of an ignorance which has no subject and no object? If you say: A pure manifestation of the spiritual essence is revealed only by the cognition opposed to ignorance (or illusion), and thus there is no absurdity in the consciousness of ignorance[69] accompanied with a consciousness of its subject and object; then we rejoin:—Unfortunately for you, this (consciousness of subject) must arise equally in the absence of knowledge (for such we define illusion to be), notwithstanding your assertion to the contrary. It must, therefore, be acknowledged that the cognition, I am ignorant, I know not myself and other things, is conversant about an absence of cognition allowed by us both.

Well, then (the Śáṅkaras may contend), let the form of cognition evidentiary of illusion, which is under disputation, be inference, as follows:—Right knowledge must have had for its antecedent another entity (sc. illusion), an entity different from mere prior non-existence of knowledge, which envelops the objects of knowledge, which is terminable by knowledge, which occupies the place of knowledge, inasmuch as it (the right knowledge) illuminates an object not before illuminated, like the light of a lamp springing up for the first time in the darkness. This argument (we reply) will not stand grinding (in the dialectic mill); for to prove the (antecedent) illusion, you will require an ulterior illusion which you do not admit, and a violation of your own tenets will ensue, while if you do not so prove it, it may or may not exist; and, moreover, the example is incompatible with the argument, for it cannot be the lamp that illumines the hitherto unillumined object, since it is knowledge only that illumines; and an illumination of objects may be effected by knowledge even without the lamp, while the light of the lamp is only ancillary to the visual organ which effectuates the cognition, ancillary mediately through the dispulsion of the obstruent darkness. We dismiss further prolixity.

The counterposition (of the Rámánujas) is as follows:—The illusion under dispute does not reside in Brahman, who is pure knowledge, because it is an illusion, like the illusion about nacre, &c. If any one ask: Has not the self-conscious entity that underlies the illusion about nacre, &c., knowledge only for its nature? they reply:[70] Do not start such difficulties; for we suppose that consciousness by its bare existence has the nature of creating conformity to the usage about (i.e., the name and notion of) some object; and such consciousness, also called knowledge, apprehension, comprehension, intelligence, &c., constitutes the soul, or knowledge, of that which acts and knows. If any one ask: How can the soul, if it consists of cognition, have cognition as a quality? they reply: This question is futile; for as a gem, the sun, and other luminous things, existing in the form of light, are substances in which light as a quality inheres—for light, as existing elsewhere than in its usual receptacle, and as being a mode of things though a substance, is still styled and accounted a quality derived from determination by that substance,—so this soul, while it exists as a self-luminous intelligence, has also intelligence as its quality. Accordingly the Vedic texts: A lump of salt is always within and without one entire mass of taste, so also this soul is within and without an entire mass of knowledge; Herein this person is itself a light; Of the knowledge of that which knows there is no suspension; He who knows, smells this; and so also, This is the soul which, consisting of knowledge, is the light within the heart; For this person is the seer, the hearer, the taster, the smeller, the thinker, the understander, the doer; The person is knowledge, and the like texts.

It is not to be supposed that the Veda also affords evidence of the existence of the cosmical illusion, in the text, Enveloped in untruth (anṛita); for the word untruth (anṛita) denotes that which is other than truth (ṛita). The word ṛita has a passive sense, as appears from the words, Drinking ṛita. Ṛita means works done without desire of fruit; having as its reward the attainment of the bliss of the Supreme Spirit through his propitiation. In the text in question, untruth (anṛita) designates the scanty fruit enjoyed during transmigratory existence as opposed to that (which results from propitiation of the Supreme Spirit),[71] which temporal fruit is obstructive to the attainment of supreme existence (brahman); the entire text (when the context is supplied) being: They who find not this supreme sphere (brahma-loka) are enveloped in untruth. In such texts, again, as Let him know illusion (máyá) to be the primary emanative cause (prakṛiti), the term (máyá) designates the emanative cause, consisting of the three "cords" (guṇa), and creative of the diversified universe. It does not designate the inexplicable illusion (for which the Śáṅkaras contend).

In such passages as, By him the defender of the body of the child, moving rapidly, the thousand illusions (máyá) of the barbarian were swooped upon as by a hawk, we observe that the word "illusion" (máyá) designates the really existent weapon of a Titan, capable of projective diversified creation. The Veda, then, never sets out an inexplicable illusion. Nor (is the cosmical illusion to be inferred from the "grand text," That art thou), inasmuch as the words, That art thou, being incompetent to teach unity, and indicating a conditionate Supreme Spirit, we cannot understand by them the essential unity of the mutually exclusive supreme and individual spirits; for such a supposition (as that they are identical) would violate the law of excluded middle. To explain this. The term That denotes the Supreme Spirit exempt from all imperfections, of illimitable excellence, a repository of innumerable auspicious attributes, to whom the emanation, sustentation, retractation of the universe is a pastime;[108] such being the Supreme Spirit, spoken of in such texts as, That desired, let me be many, let me bring forth. Perhaps the word Thou, referring to the same object (as the word That), denotes the Supreme Spirit characterised by consciousness, having all individual spirits as his body; for a "reference to the same object" designates one thing determined by two modes. Here, perhaps, an Advaita-vádin may reply: Why [72]may not the purport of the reference to the same object in the words, That art thou, be undifferenced essence, the unity of souls, these words (That and thou) having a (reciprocally) implicate power by abandonment of opposite portions of their meaning; as is the case in the phrase, This is that Devadatta. In the words, This is that Devadatta, we understand by the word That, a person in relation to a different time and place, and by the word This, a person in relation to the present time and place. That both are one and the same is understood by the form of predication ("reference to the same object"). Now as one and the same thing cannot at the same time be known as in different times and places, the two words (This and That) must refer to the essence (and not to the accidents of time and place), and unity of essence can be understood. Similarly in the text, That art thou, there is implicated an indivisible essence by abandonment of the contradictory portions (of the denotation), viz., finite cognition (which belongs to the individual soul or Thou), and infinite cognition (which belongs to the real or unindividual soul). This suggestion (the Rámánujas reply) is unsatisfactory, for there is no opposition (between This and That) in the example (This is that Devadatta), and consequently not the smallest particle of "implication" (lakshaṇá, both This and That being used in their denotative capacity). The connection of one object with two times past and present involves no contradiction. And any contradiction supposed to arise from relation to different places may be avoided by a supposed difference of time, the existence in the distant place being past, and the existence in the near being present. Even if we concede to you the "implication," the (supposed) contradiction being avoidable by supposing one term (either That or Thou) to be implicative, it is unnecessary to admit that both words are implicative. Otherwise (if we admit that both words are implicative), if it be granted that the one thing may be recognised, with the concomitant assurance that it differs as this and[73] as that, permanence in things will be inadmissible, and the Buddhist assertor of a momentary flux of things will be triumphant.

We have, therefore (the Rámánujas continue), laid it down in this question that there is no contradiction in the identity of the individual and the Supreme Spirit, the individual spirits being the body and the Supreme Spirit the soul. For the individual spirit as the body, and therefore a form, of the Supreme Spirit, is identical with the Supreme Spirit, according to another text, Who abiding in the soul, is the controller of the soul, who knows the soul, of whom soul is the body.

Your statement of the matter, therefore, is too narrow. All words are designatory of the Supreme Spirit. They are not all synonymous, a variety of media being possible; thus as all organised bodies, divine, human, &c., are forms of individual spirits, so all things (are the body of Supreme Spirit), all things are identical with Supreme Spirit. Hence—

God, Man, Yaksha, Piśácha, serpent, Rákshasa, bird, tree, creeper, wood, stone, grass, jar, cloth,—these and all other words, be they what they may, which are current among mankind as denotative by means of their base and its suffixes, as denoting those things, in denoting things of this or that apparent constitution, really denote the individual souls which assumed to them such body, and the whole complexus of things terminating in the Supreme Spirit ruling within. That God and all other words whatsoever ultimately denote the Supreme Spirit is stated in the Tattva-muktávalí and in the Chaturantara—

In these words the author, setting forth that all words, God, and the rest, designate the body, and showing in the words, "No unity in systems," &c., the characteristic of body, and showing in the words, "By words which are substitutes for the essence of things," &c., that it is established that nothing is different from the universal Lord, lays down in the verses, Significant of the essence, &c., that all words ultimately designate the Supreme Spirit. All this may be ascertained from that work. The same matter has been enforced by Rámánuja in the Vedártha-saṅgraha, when analysing the Vedic text about names and forms.

Moreover, every form of evidence having some determinate object, there can be no evidence of an undetermined (unconditionate) reality. Even in non-discriminative perception it is a determinate (or conditioned) thing that is cognised. Else in discriminative perception there could not be shown to be a cognition characterised by an already presented form. Again, that text, That art thou, is not sublative of the universe as rooted in illusion, like a sentence declaratory that what was illusorily presented, as a snake is a piece of rope; nor does knowledge of the unity of the absolute and the soul bring (this illusory universe) to an end; for we have already demonstrated that there is no proof of these positions.

Nor is there an absurdity (as the Śáṅkaras would say), on the hypothesis enunciatory of the reality of the universe, in affirming that by a cognition of one there is a cognition of all things: for it is easily evinced that the mundane egg, consisting of the primary cause (prakṛiti), intellect, self-position, the rudimentary elements, the gross elements, the organs (of sense and of action), and the fourteen worlds, and the gods, animals, men, immovable things, and so forth, that exist within it, constituting a complex of all forms, is all an effect, and that from the single cognition[75] of absolute spirit as its (emanative) cause, when we recognise that all this is absolute spirit (there being a tautology between cause and effect), there arises cognition of all things, and thus by cognition of one cognition of all. Besides, if all else than absolute spirit were unreal, then all being non-existent, it would follow that by one cognition all cognition would be sublated.

It is laid down (by the Rámánujas) that retractation into the universe (pralaya) is when the universe, the body whereof consists of souls and the originant (prakṛiti), returns to its imperceptible state, unsusceptible of division by names and forms, existing as absolute spirit the emanative cause; and that creation (or emanation) is the gross or perceptible condition of absolute spirit, the body whereof is soul and not soul divided by diversity of names and forms, in the condition of the (emanative) effect of absolute spirit. In this way the identity of cause and effect laid down in the aphorism (of Vyása) treating of origination, is easily explicable. The statements that the Supreme Spirit is void of attributes, are intended (it is shown) to deny thereof phenomenal qualities which are to be escaped from by those that desire emancipation. The texts which deny plurality are explained as allowed to be employed for the denial of the real existence of things apart from the Supreme Spirit, which is identical with all things, it being Supreme Spirit which subsists under all forms as the soul of all, all things sentient and unsentient being forms as being the body of absolute Spirit.[109]

What is the principle here involved, pluralism or monism, or a universe both one and more than one? Of these alternatives monism is admitted in saying that Supreme Spirit alone subsists in all forms as all is its body; both unity and plurality are admitted in saying that one only Supreme Spirit subsists under a plurality of forms diverse as soul and not-soul; and plurality is admitted in saying [76]that the essential natures of soul, not-soul, and the Lord, are different, and not to be confounded.

Of these (soul, not-soul, and the Lord), individual spirits, or souls, consisting of uncontracted and unlimited pure knowledge, but enveloped in illusion, that is, in works from all eternity, undergo contraction and expansion of knowledge according to the degrees of their merits. Soul experiences fruition, and after reaping pleasures and pains proportionate to merits and demerits, there ensues knowledge of the Lord, or attainment of the sphere of the Lord. Of things which are not-soul, and which are objects of fruition (or experience of pleasure and pain), unconsciousness, unconduciveness to the end of man, susceptibility of modification, and the like, are the properties. Of the Supreme Lord the attributes are subsistence, as the internal controller (or animator) of both the subjects and the objects of fruition; the boundless glory of illimitable knowledge, dominion, majesty, power, brightness, and the like, the countless multitude of auspicious qualities; the generation at will of all things other than himself, whether spiritual or non-spiritual; various and infinite adornment with unsurpassable excellence, singular, uniform, and divine.

Veṅkaṭa-nátha has given the following distribution of things:—

Of these[77]—

Of these (soul, not-soul, and the Lord), individual spirits, called souls, are different from the Supreme Spirit and eternal. Thus the text: Two birds, companions, friends, &c. (Rig-Veda, i. 164, 20). Accordingly it is stated (in the aphorisms of Kaṇáda, iii. 2, 20), Souls are diverse by reason of diversity of conditions. The eternity of souls is often spoken of in revelation—

Otherwise (were the soul not eternal) there would follow a failure of requital and a fruition (of pleasures and pains) unmerited. It has accordingly been said (in the aphorisms of Gautaṃa, iii. 25): Because no birth is seen of one who is devoid of desire. That the soul is atomic is well known from revelation—

And again—

[78]

The visible, unsentient world, designated by the term not-soul, is divided into three, as the object, the instrument, or the site of fruition. Of this world the efficient and substantial cause is the Deity, known under the names Purushottama (best of spirits), Vásudeva (a patronymic of Kṛishṇa), and the like.

This same Vásudeva, infinitely compassionate, tender to those devoted to him, the Supreme Spirit, with the purpose of bestowing various rewards apportioned to the deserts of his votaries in consequence of pastime, exists under five modes, distinguished as "adoration" (archá), "emanation" (vibhava), "manifestation" (vyúha), "the subtile" (súkshma), and the "internal controller." (1.) "Adoration" is images, and so forth. (2.) "Emanation" is his incarnation, as Ráma, and so forth. (3.) His "manifestation" is fourfold, as Vásudeva, Saṅkarshaṇa, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha. (4.) "The subtile" is the entire Supreme Spirit, with six attributes, called Vásudeva. His attributes are exemption from sin, and the rest. That he is exempt from sin is attested in the Vedic text: Passionless, deathless, without sorrow, without hunger, desiring truth, true in purpose. (5.) The "internal controller," the actuator of all spirits, according to the text: Who abiding in the soul, rules the soul within. When by worshipping each former embodiment a mass of sins inimical to the end of the soul (i.e., emancipation) have been destroyed, the votary becomes entitled to practise the worship of each latter embodiment. It has, therefore, been said—

The worship of the Deity is described in the Pañcha-rátra as consisting of five elements, viz., (1.) the access, (2.) the preparation, (3.) oblation, (4.) recitation, (5.) devotion. Of these, access is the sweeping, smearing, and so forth, of the way to the temple. The preparation is the provision of perfumes, flowers, and the like appliances of worship. Oblation is worship of the deities. Recitation is the muttered ejaculation of sacred texts, with attention to what they mean, the rehearsal of hymns and lauds of Vishṇu, the commemoration of his names, and study of institutes which set forth the truth. Devotion is meditation on the Deity. When the vision of the visible world has been brought to a close by knowledge accumulated by the merit of such worship, the infinitely compassionate Supreme Spirit, tender to his votaries, bestows upon the votary devoted to his lord and absorbed in his lord, his own sphere infinite and endless, marked by consciousness[80] of being like him, from which there is no future return (to the sorrows of transmigratory existence). So the traditionary text—

After laying up all this in his heart, leaning upon the teaching of the great Upanishad, and finding the gloss on the Vedánta aphorisms by the venerated Bodháyanachárya too prolix, Rámánuja composed a commentary on the Śárírakamímánsá (or Vedánta theosophy). In this the sense of the first aphorism, "Then hence the absolute must be desired to be known," is given as follows:—The word then in this aphorism means, after understanding the hitherto-current sacred rites. Thus the glossator writes: "After learning the sacred rites," he desires to know the absolute. The word hence states the reason, viz., because one who has read the Veda and its appendages and understands its meaning is averse from sacred rites, their recompense being perishable. The wish to know the absolute springs up in one who longs for permanent liberation, as being the means of such liberation. By the word absolute is designated the Supreme Spirit, from whom are essentially excluded all imperfections, who is of illimitable excellence, and of innumerable auspicious attributes. Since then the knowledge of sacred rites and the performance of those rites is mediately through engendering dispassionateness, and through putting away the defilement of the understanding, an instrument of the knowledge of the absolute; and knowledge of sacred rites and knowledge of the absolute being consequently cause and effect, the former and the latter Mímánsá constitute one system of institutes. On this account the glossator has described[81] this system as one with the sixteenfold system of Jaimini. That the fruit of sacred rites is perishable, and that of the knowledge of the absolute imperishable, has been laid down in virtue of Vedic texts, such as: Scanning the spheres gained by rites, let him become passionless; Not wrought by the rite performed, accompanied with inference and disjunctive reasoning. Revelation, by censuring each when unaccompanied by the other, shows that it is knowledge together with works that is efficacious of emancipation, in the words: Blind darkness they enter who prefer illusion, and a greater darkness still do they enter who delight in knowledge only; knowledge and illusion, he who knows these both, he passing beyond death together with illusion, tastes immortality by knowledge. Conformably it is said in the Pañcharátra-rahasya—

It is therefore stated that those who suffer the three kinds of pain must, for the attainment of immortality, investigate the absolute spirit known under such appellations as the Highest Being. According to the maxim: The base and the suffix convey the meaning conjointly, and of these the meaning of the suffix takes the lead, the notion of desire is predominant (in the word jijñásitavya), and desired knowledge is the predicate (in the aphorism, Then hence the absolute must be desired to be known). Knowledge is cognition designated by such terms as meditation, devotion; not the merely superficial knowledge derived from verbal communication, such being competent to any one who hears a number of words and understands the force of each, even without any predication; in conformity with such Vedic texts as: Self indeed it is that is to be seen, to be heard, to be thought, to be pondered; He should meditate that it is self alone; Having known, let him acquire excellent wisdom; He should know that which is beyond knowledge. In these texts "to be heard" is explanatory, hearing being understood (but not enounced) in the text about sacred study (viz., shaḍaṅgena vedo'dhyeyo jñeyaścha, the Veda, with its six appendages, is to be studied and known); so that a man who has studied the Veda must of his own accord, in acquiring the Veda and its appendages, engage in "hearing," in order to ascertain the sense by examining it and the occasion of its enouncement. The term "to be thought" (or "to be inferred") is also explanatory, cogitation (or inference) being understood[83] as the complementary meaning of hearing, according to the aphorism: Before its signification is attained the system is significant. Meditation is a reminiscence consisting of an unbroken succession of reminiscences like a stream of oil, it being revealed in the text, in continuity of reminiscence there is a solution of all knots,—that it is unintermittent reminiscence that is the means of emancipation. And this reminiscence is tantamount to intuition.

because he becomes one with that Supreme. So also in the words, Self indeed is to be seen, it is predicated of this reminiscence that it is an intuition. Reminiscence becomes intuitional through the vivacity of the representations. The author of the Vákya has treated of all this in detail in the passage beginning Cognition is meditation. The characters of this meditation are laid out in the text: This soul is not attainable by exposition, nor by wisdom, nor by much learning; Whom God chooses by him God may be attained. To him this self unfolds its own nature. For it is that which is dearest which is choice-worthy, and as the soul finds itself most dear, so the Lord is of Himself most dear, as was declared by the Lord Himself—

And again—

But devotion (or faith) is a kind of cognition which admits no other motive than the illimitable beatitude, and is free from all other desires; and the attainment of this devotion is by discrimination and other means. As is said by the author of the Vákya: Attainment thereof[84] results from discrimination (viveka), exemption (vimoka), practice (abhyása), observance (kriyá), excellence (kalyáṇa), freedom from despondency (anavasáda), satisfaction (anuddharsha), according to the equivalence (of the definition), and the explication (of these terms). Of these means, discrimination is purity of nature, resultant from eating undefiled food, and the explication (of discrimination) is From purity of diet, purity of understanding, and by purity of understanding the unintermittent reminiscence. Exemption is non-attachment to sensuous desires; the explication being, Let the quietist meditate. Practice is reiteration; and of this a traditionary explication is quoted (from the Bhagavad-gítá) by (Rámánuja) the author of the commentary: For ever modified by the modes thereof. Observance is the performance of rites enjoined in revelation and tradition according to one's ability; the explication being (the Vedic text), He who has performed rites is the best of those that know the supreme. The excellences are veracity, integrity, clemency, charity (alms-giving), and the like; the explication being, It is attained by veracity. Freedom from despondency is the contrary of dejection; the explication being, This soul is not attained by the faint-hearted. Satisfaction is the contentment which arises from the contrary of dejection; the explication being, Quiescent, self-subdued. It has thus been shown that by the devotion of one in whom the darkness has been dispelled by the grace of the Supreme Spirit, propitiated by certain rites and observances, which devotion is meditation transformed into a presentative manifestation of soul, without ulterior motive, as incessantly and illimitably desired, the sphere of the Supreme Spirit (Vaikuṇṭha) is attained. Thus Yámuna says: Attainable by the final and absolute devotion of faith in one internally purified by both (works and knowledge); that is, in one whose internal organ is rectified by the devotion of works and knowledge.

In anticipation of the inquiry, But what absolute is to[85] be desired to be known? the definition is given (in the second aphorism). From which the genesis, and so forth, of this. The genesis, and so forth, the creation (emanation), sustentation, and retractation (of the universe). The purport of the aphorism is that the emanation, sustentation, and retractation of this universe, inconceivably multiform in its structure, and interspersed with souls, from Brahmá to a tuft of grass, of determinate place, time, and fruition, is from this same universal Lord, whose essence is contrary to all qualities which should be escaped from, of illimitable excellences, such as indefeasible volition, and of innumerable auspicious attributes, omniscient, and omnipotent.

In anticipation of the further inquiry, What proof is there of an absolute of this nature? It is stated that the system of institutes itself is the evidence (in the third aphorism): Because it has its source from the system. To have its source from the system is to be that whereof the cause or evidence is the system. The system, then, is the source (or evidence) of the absolute, as being the cause of knowing the self, which is the cause of knowing the absolute. Nor is the suspicion possible that the absolute may be reached by some other form of evidence. For perception can have no conversancy about the absolute since it is supersensible. Nor can inference, for the illation, the ocean, and the rest, must have a maker, because it is an effect like a water-pot, is worth about as much as a rotten pumpkin. It is evinced that it is such texts as, Whence also these elements, that prove the existence of the absolute thus described.

Though the absolute (it may be objected) be unsusceptible of any other kind of proof, the system, did it not refer to activity and cessation of activity, could not posit the absolute aforesaid. To avoid by anticipation any queries on this point, it is stated (in the fourth aphorism): But that is from the construction. This is intended to exclude the doubt anticipated. The evidence, then, of the[86] system is the only evidence that can be given of the absolute. Why? Because of the construction, that is because the absolute, that is, the highest end for man, is construed as the subject (of the first aphorism, viz., Then thence the absolute is to be desired to be known). Moreover, a sentence which has nothing to do either with activity or with cessation of activity is not therefore void of purpose, for we observe that sentences merely declaratory of the nature of things, such as, A son is born to you, This is not a snake, convey a purpose, viz., the cessation of joy or of fear. Thus there is nothing unaccounted for. We have here given only a general indication. The details may be learnt from the original (viz., Rámánuja's Bháshya on the Vedánta aphorisms); we therefore decline a further treatment, apprehensive of prolixity; and thus all is clear.[110]

A. E. G.

[87]

CHAPTER V.

THE SYSTEM OF PURNA-PRAJNA.

Ánanda-tírtha (Púrṇa-prajña, or Madhva) rejected this same Rámánuja system, because, though like his own views, it teaches the atomic size of the soul, the servitude of the soul, the existence of the Veda without any personal author, the authenticity of the Veda, the self-evidence of the instruments of knowledge, the triad of evidences, dependency upon the Pañcha-rátra, the reality of plurality in the universe, and so forth,—yet, in accepting three hypotheses as to reciprocally contradictory divisions, &c., it coincides with the tenets of the Jainas. Showing that He is soul, That art thou, and a number of other texts of the Upanishads bear a different import under a different explanation, he set up a new system under the guise of a new explication of the Brahma-Mímáṇsá (or Vedánta).

For in his doctrine ultimate principles are dichotomised into independent and dependent; as it is stated in the Tattva-viveka:—

Here it will be urged (by the Advaita-vádins): Why predicate of the absolute these inexhaustible excellences in the teeth of the Upanishads, which lay down that the absolute principle is void of homogeneity and heterogeneity, and of all plurality in itself? To this be it[88] replied: Not so, for these texts of the Upanishads, as contradictory of many proofs positive of duality, cannot afford proof of universal unity; perception, for example, in the consciousness, This is different from that, pronounces a difference between things, blue and yellow, and so forth. The opponent will rejoin: Do you hold that perception is cognisant of a perceptional difference, or of a difference constituted by the thing and its opposite? The former alternative will not hold: for without a cognition of the thing and its opposite, the recognition of the difference, which presupposes such a cognition, will be impossible. On the latter alternative it must be asked, Is the apprehension of the difference preceded by an apprehension of the thing and its contrary, or are all the three (the thing, its contrary, and the contrariety) simultaneously apprehended? It cannot be thus preceded, for the operation of the intellect is without delay (or without successive steps), and there would also result a logical seesaw (apprehension of the difference presupposing apprehension of the thing and its contrary, and apprehension of the thing and its contrary presupposing apprehension of the difference). Nor can there be a simultaneous apprehension (of the thing, its contrary, and the difference); for cognitions related as cause and effect cannot be simultaneous, and the cognition of the thing is the cause of the recognition of the difference; the causal relation between the two being recognised by a concomitance and non-concomitance (mutual exclusion), the difference not being cognised even when the thing is present, without a cognition of its absent contrary. The perception of difference, therefore (the opponent concludes), is not easily admissible. To this let the reply be as follows:—Are these objections proclaimed against one who maintains a difference identical with the things themselves, or against one who maintains a difference between things as the subjects of attributes? In the former case, you will be, as the saying runs, punishing a respectable Bráhman for the offence of a thief, the objections[89] you adduce being irrelevant. If it be urged that if it is the essence of the thing that is the difference, then it will no longer require a contrary counterpart; but if difference presuppose a contrary counterpart, it will exist everywhere; this statement must be disallowed, for while the essence of a thing is first known as different from everything else, the determinate usage (name and notion) may be shown to depend upon a contrary counterpart; for example, the essence of a thing so far as constituted by its dimensions is first cognised, and afterwards it becomes the object of some determinate judgment, as long or short in relation to some particular counterpart (or contrasted object). Accordingly, it is said in the Vishṇu-tattva-nirṇaya: "Difference is not proved to exist by the relation of determinant and determinate; for this relation of determinant and determinate (or predicate and subject) presupposes difference; and if difference were proved to depend upon the thing and its counterpart, and the thing and its counterpart to presuppose difference, difference as involving a logical circle could not be accounted for; but difference is itself a real predicament (or ultimate entity). For this reason (viz., because difference is a thing) it is that men in quest of a cow do not act (as if they had found her) when they see a gayal, and do not recall the word cow. Nor let it be objected that (if difference be a real entity and as such perceived) on seeing a mixture of milk and water, there would be a presentation of difference; for the absence of any manifestation of, and judgment about, the difference, may be accounted for by the force of (the same) obstructives (as hinder the perception of other things), viz., aggregation of similars and the rest." Thus it has been said (in the Sáṅkhya-káriká, v. vii.)—

[90]

There is no perception respectively of a tree and the like on the peak of a mountain, because of its too great remoteness; of collyrium applied to the eyes, and so forth, because of too great proximity; of lightning and the like, because of a defect in the organs; of a jar or the like in broad daylight, by one whose common sensory is bewildered by lust and other passions, because of instability of the common sensory; of an atom and the like, because of their subtility; of things behind a wall, and so forth, because of interposition; of the light of a lamp and the like, in the day-time, because of its being overpowered; of milk and water, because of the aggregation of similars.

Or let the hypothesis of difference in qualities be granted, and no harm is done; for given the apprehension of a subject of attributes and of its contrary, the presentation of difference in their modes is possible. Nor let it be supposed that on the hypothesis of difference in the modes of things, as each difference must be different from some ulterior difference, there will result an embarrassing progression to infinity, there being no occasion for the occurrence of the said ulterior difference, inasmuch as we do not observe that men think and say that two things are different as differenced from the different. Nor can an ulterior difference be inferred from the first difference, for there being no difference to serve as the example in such inference, there cannot but be a non-occurrence of inference. And thus it must be allowed that in raising the objection you have begged for a little oil-cake, and have had to give us gallons of oil. If there be no difference for the example the inference cannot emerge. The bride is not married for the destruction of the bridegroom. There being, then, no fundamental difficulty, this infinite progression presents no trouble.

Difference (duality) is also ascertained by inference. Thus the Supreme Lord differs from the individual soul as the object of its obedience; and he who is to be obeyed by any person differs from that person, a king, for instance,[91] from his attendant. For men, desiring as they do the end of man, Let me have pleasure, let me not have the slightest pain, if they covet the position of their lord, do not become objects of his favour, nay, rather, they become recipients of all kinds of evil. He who asserts his own inferiority and the excellence of his superior, he it is who is to be commended; and the gratified superior grants his eulogist his desire. Therefore it has been said:—

Thus the statement of those (Advaita-vádins) in their thirst to be one with the Supreme Lord, that the supreme excellence of Vishṇu is like a mirage, is as if they were to cut off their tongues in trying to get a fine plantain, since it results that through offending this supreme Vishṇu they must enter into the hell of blind darkness (andha-tamasa). The same thing is laid down by Madhya-mandira in the Mahábhárata-tátparya-nirṇaya:—

This service (or obedience of which we have spoken) is trichotomised into (1.) stigmatisation, (2.) imposition of names, (3.) worship.

Of these, (1.) stigmatisation is (the branding upon oneself) of the weapons of Náráyaṇa (or Vishṇu) as a memorial of him, and as a means of attaining the end which is needful (emancipation). Thus the sequel of the Sákalya-samhitá:—

Again, the Taittiríyaka Upanishad says: "He whose body is not branded, is raw, and tastes it not: votaries bearing it attain thereto." The particular parts to be branded are specified in the Ágneya-puráṇa:—

In another passage is given the invocation to be recited on being branded with the discus:—

(2.) Imposition of names is the appellation of sons and others by such names as Keśava, as a continual memorial of the name of the Supreme Lord.

(3.) Worship is of ten kinds, viz., with the voice, (1.) veracity, (2.) usefulness, (3.) kindliness, (4.) sacred study; with the body, (5.) alms-giving, (6.) defence, (7.) protection; with the common sensory, (8.) mercy, (9.) longing, and (10.) faith. Worship is the dedication to Náráyaṇa of each of these as it is realised. Thus it has been said:[93]—

Difference (or duality between the Supreme Being and the universe) may also be inferred from cognisability and other marks. So also difference (or duality) may be understood from revelation, from texts setting out duality in emancipation and beatitude, such as: "All rejoice over truth attained; truthful, and celebrating the gift of the divine Indra, they recount his glory;" "Sarva, among those that know the truth, O Bráhman, is in the universe, true spirit; true is individual spirit; truth is duality, truth is duality, in me is illusion, in me illusion, in me illusion."

Again:—

According also to such aphorisms as, "Excepting cosmical operation because of occasion, and because of non-proximity."

Nor should suggestion be made that individual spirit is God in virtue of the text, He that knows the absolute becomes the absolute; for this text is hyperbolically eulogistic, like the text, Worshipping a Bráhman devoutly a Śúdra becomes a Bráhman, i.e., becomes exalted.

If any one urge that according to the text:—

this duality is merely illusory, and in reality a unity, and that duality is learnt to be illusorily imagined; it may be replied: What you say is true, but you do not understand its meaning; for the real meaning is, If this world had been produced, it would, without doubt, come to an end; therefore this universe is from everlasting, a fivefold dual universe; and it is not non-existent, because it is mere illusion. Illusion is defined to be the will of[94] the Lord, in virtue of the testimony of many such passages as:—

That in which this excellent knowledge produces knowledge and effects sustentation thereof, that is pure illusion, as known and sustained, therefore by the Supreme Lord duality is not illusorily imagined. For in the Lord illusory imagination of the universe is not possible, illusory imagination arising from non-perception of differences (which as an imperfection is inconsistent with the divine nature).

If it be asked how then that (illusory duality) is predicated, the answer is that in reality there is a non-duality, that is in reality, Vishṇu being better than all else, has no equal and no superior. Accordingly, the grand revelation:—

The purpose, then, of all revelations is to set out the supreme excellence of Vishṇu. With this in view the Lord declared:—

So in the Mahá-varáha—

It is reasonable that the primary purport should regard the supreme excellence of Vishṇu. For emancipation is[96] the highest end of all men, according to the text of the Bhállaveya Upanishad: While merit, wealth, and enjoyment are transitory, emancipation is eternal; therefore a wise man should strive unceasingly to attain thereto. And emancipation is not won without the grace of Vishṇu, according to the text of the Náráyaṇa Upanishad: Through whose grace is the highest state, through whose essence he is liberated from transmigration, while inferior men propitiating the divinities are not emancipated; the supreme object of discernment to those who desire to be liberated from this snare of works. According also to the words of the Vishṇu-puráṇa—

"If he be propitiated, what may not here be won? Enough of all wealth and enjoyments. These are scanty enough. On climbing the tree of the supreme essence, without doubt a man attains to the fruit of emancipation."

And it is declared that the grace of Vishṇu is won only through the knowledge of his excellence, not through the knowledge of non-duality. Nor is there in this doctrine any confliction with texts declaratory of the identity (of personal and impersonal spirit) such as, That art thou (for this pretended identity) is mere babbling from ignorance of the real purport.

And this text (That art thou) indicates similarity (not identity) like the text, The sun is the sacrificial post. Thus the grand revelation:—

Or to propose another explanation of the text, Átmá tat tvam asi, That art thou, it may be divided, átmá tat tvam asi. He alone is soul as possessing independence and other attributes, and thou art not-that (atat) as wanting those attributes; and thus the doctrine of unity is utterly expelled. Thus it has been said:—

According, therefore, to the Tattva-váda-rahasya, the words in the nine examples (in the Chhándogya Upanishad), He like a bird tied with a string, &c., teach unity with the view of giving an example of non-duality. Accordingly the Mahopanishad:—

And again—

[98]

And again:—

That by knowledge of one thing there is knowledge of all things may be evinced from its supremacy and causality, not from the falsity of all things. For knowledge of the false cannot be brought about by knowledge of real existence. As we see the current assurance and expression that by knowing or not knowing its chief men a village is known or not known; and as when the father the cause is known, a man knows the son; (so by knowing the supreme and the cause, the inferior and the effect is known). Otherwise (on the doctrine of the Advaita-vádins that the world is false and illusory) the words one and lump in the text, By one lump of clay, fair sir, all that is made of clay is recognised, would be used to no purpose, for the text must be completed by supplying the words, By reason of clay recognised. For the text, Utterance with the voice, modification, name, clay (or other determinate object),—these alone are real, cannot be assumed to impart the falsity of things made; the reality of these being admitted, for what is meant is, that of which utterance with the voice is a modification, is unmodified, eternal; and a name such as clay, such speech is true. Otherwise it would result that the words name and alone would be otiose. There is no proof anywhere, then, that the world is unreal. Besides (we would ask) is the statement that the world is false itself true or false. If the statement is true, there is a violation of a real non-duality. If the statement is untrue, it follows that the world is true.

Perhaps it may be objected that this dilemma is a kind of fallacious reasoning, like the dilemma: Is transitoriness[99] permanent or transitory? There is a difficulty in either case. As it is said by the author of the Nyáya-nirváṇa: The proof of the permanence of the transitory, as being both permanent and transitory, is a paralogism. And in the Tárkika-rakshá—

With the implied mention of this same technical expression it is stated in the Prabodha-siddhi: Equality of characteristic modes results from significancy. If it be said, This then is a valid rejoinder, we reply, This is a mere scaring of the uninstructed, for the source of fallacy has not been pointed out. This is twofold, general and particular: of these, the former is self-destructive, and the latter is of three kinds, defect of a requisite element, excess of an element not requisite, and residence in that which is not the subjicible subject. Of these (two forms of the fallacy), the general form is not suspected, no self-pervasion being observed in the dilemma in question (viz., Is the statement that the world is unreal itself true or false? &c.) So likewise the particular; for if a water-jar be said to be non-existent, the affirmation of its non-existence is equally applicable to the water-jar as that of its existence.

If you reply: We accept the unreality (or falsity) of the world, not its non-existence; this reply is about as wise as the procedure of the carter who will lose his head rather than pay a hundred pieces of money, but will at once give five score; for falsity and non-existence are synonymous. We dismiss further prolixity.

The meaning of the first aphorism, viz., Then hence the absolute is to be desired to be known, is as follows:—The word then is allowed to purport auspiciousness, and to designate subsequency to the qualification (of the aspirant). The word hence indicates a reason.[100]

Accordingly it is stated in the Gáruḍa-puráṇa:—

Thus addressed by Nárada, the most excellent Brahmá replied:—

It is laid down that we must institute inquiries about the absolute, because emancipation is not attained without the grace of Náráyana, and his grace is not attained without knowledge. The absolute, about which the inquiry is to be instituted, is described in the words (of the second aphorism): From which the genesis, and so forth, of this. The meaning of the sentence is that the absolute is that from which result emanation, sustentation, and retractation; according to the words of the Skanda-puráṇa—

and according to such Vedic texts, From which are these. The evidence adducible for this is described (in the third aphorism): Because it has its source from the system. That the absolute should be reached by way of inference is rejected by such texts as, He that knows not the Veda cogitates not that mighty one; Him described in the Upanishads. Inference, moreover, is not by itself authoritative, as is said in the Kaurma-puráṇa—

What a Śástra (or system of sacred institutes) is, has been stated in the Skanda-puráṇa:—

According, then, to the rule that the sense of the sacred institutes is not to be taken from other sources than these, the Monist view, viz., that the purport of the texts of the Veda relates not to the duality learnt from those but to non-duality, is rejected: for as there is no proof of a God from inference, so there is no proof of the duality between God and other things from inference. Therefore there can be in these texts no mere explanation of such duality, and the texts must be understood to indicate the duality. Hence it is that it has said:—

It has thus been evinced that the sacred institutes are the evidence of (the existence of) this (ultimate reality, Brahman). (The fourth aphorism is): But that is from the construction. In regard to this, the commencement and other elements are stated to be the marks of the construction, in the Bṛihat-saṃhitá:—

It is thus stated that in accordance with the purport of[102] the Upanishads the absolute is to be apprehended only from the sacred institutes. We have here given merely a general indication. What remains may be sought from the Ánandatírtha-bháshya-vyákhyána (or exposition of the Commentary of Ánanda-tírtha). We desist for fear of giving an undue prolixity to our treatise. This mystery was promulgated by Púrṇa-prajña Madhya-mandira, who esteemed himself the third incarnation of Váyu:—

After expressing the same idea in various passages, he has written the following stanza at the conclusion of his work:—

The import of this stanza may be learnt by considering various Vedic texts.

The purport of this is that Vishṇu is the principle above all others in every system of sacred institutes. Thus all is clear.[111]

A. E. G.

[103]

CHAPTER VI.

THE PÁŚUPATA SYSTEM OF NAKULÍŚA.

Certain Máheśvaras disapprove of this doctrine of the Vaishṇavas known by its technicalities of the servitude of souls and the like, inasmuch as bringing with it the pains of dependence upon another, it cannot be a means of cessation of pain and other desired ends. They recognise as stringent such arguments as, Those depending on another and longing for independence do not become emancipated, because they still depend upon another, being destitute of independence like ourselves and others; and, Liberated spirits possess the attributes of the Supreme Deity, because at the same time, that they are spirits they are free from the germ of every pain as the Supreme Deity is. Recognising these arguments, these Máheśvaras adopt the Páśupata system, which is conversant about the exposition of five categories, as the means to the highest end of man. In this system the first aphorism is: Now then we shall expound the Páśupata union and rites of Paśupati. The meaning is as follows:—The word now refers to something antecedent, and this something antecedent is the disciple's interrogation of the spiritual teacher. The nature of a spiritual teacher is explicated in the Gaṇakáriká:—

The employment in the above line of the neuter numeral three (tríṇi), instead of the feminine three (tisraḥ), is a Vedic construction.

(a.) Acquisition is the fruit of an expedient while realising, and is divided into five members, viz., knowledge, penance, permanence of the body, constancy, and purity. Thus Haradattáchárya says: Knowledge, penance, permanence, constancy, and purity as the fifth.

(b.) Impurity is an evil condition pertaining to the soul. This is of five kinds, false conception and the rest. Thus Haradatta also says:—

(c.) An expedient is a means of purifying the aspirant to liberation.

These expedients are of five kinds, use of habitation, and the rest. Thus he also says:—

(d.) Locality is that by which, after studying the categories, the aspirant attains increase of knowledge and austerity, viz., spiritual teachers and the rest. Thus he says:—

(e.) Perseverance is the endurance in one or other of these pentads until the attainment of the desired end, and is distributed into the differenced and the rest. Thus it is said:[105]—

(f.) Purification is the putting away, once for all, of false conception and the other four impurities. It is distributed into five species according to the five things to be put away. Thus it is said—

(g.) The five initiations are thus enumerated:—

(h.) The five powers are as follow:—

The three functions are the modes of earning daily food consistent with propriety, for the diminution of the five impurities, viz., mendicancy, living upon alms, and living upon what chance supplies. All the rest is to be found in the standard words of this sect.

In the first aphorism above recited, the word now serves to introduce the exposition of the termination of pain (or emancipation), that being the object of the interrogation about the putting away of pain personal, physical, and hyperphysical. By the word paśu we are to understand the effect (or created world), the word designating that which is dependent on something ulterior. By the word pati we are to understand the cause (or principium), the word designating the Lord, who is the cause of the universe, the pati, or ruler. The meaning of the words sacrifices and rites every one knows.

In this system the cessation of pain is of two kinds, impersonal and personal. Of these, the impersonal consists in the absolute extirpation of all pains; the personal[106] in supremacy consisting of the visual and active powers. Of these two powers the visual, while only one power, is, according to its diversity of objects, indirectly describable as of five kinds, vision, audition, cogitation, discrimination, and omniscience. Of these five, vision is cognition of every kind of visual, tactual, and other sensible objects, though imperceptible, intercepted, or remote. Audition is cognition of principles, conversant about all articulate sounds. Cogitation is cognition of principles, conversant about all kinds of thoughts. Discrimination is cognition of principles conversant about the whole system of institutes, according to the text and according to its significance. Omniscience is cognition of principles ever arising and pervaded by truth, relative to all matters declared or not declared, summary or in detail, classified and specialised. Such is this intellectual power.

The active power, though one only, is indirectly describable as of three kinds, the possession of the swiftness of thought, the power of assuming forms at will, and the faculty of expatiation. Of these, the possession of the swiftness of thought is ability to act with unsurpassable celerity. The power of assuming forms at will is the faculty of employing at pleasure, and irrespective of the efficacy of works, the organs similar and dissimilar of an infinity of organisms. The faculty of expatiation is the possession of transcendent supremacy even when such organs are not employed. Such is this active power.

All that is effected or educed, depending on something ulterior, it is threefold, sentiency, the insentient, and the sentient. Of these, sentiency is the attribute of the sentients. It is of two degrees according to its nature as cognitive or incognitive. Cognitive sentiency is dichotomised as proceeding discriminately and as proceeding indiscriminately. The discriminate procedure, manifestable by the instruments of knowledge, is called the cogitative. For by the cogitant organ every sentient being is[107] cognisant of objects in general, discriminated or not discriminated, when irradiated by the light which is identical with the external things. The incognitive sentiency, again, is either characterised or not characterised by the objects of the sentient soul.

The insentient, which while unconscious is dependent on the conscious, is of two kinds, as styled the effect and as styled the cause. The insentient, styled the effect, is of ten kinds, viz., the earth and the other four elements, and their qualities, colour, and the rest. The insentient, called the causal insentient, is of thirteen kinds, viz., the five organs of cognition, the five organs of action, and the three internal organs, intellect, the egoising principle, and the cogitant principle, which have for their respective functions ascertainment, the illusive identification of self with not-self, and determination.

The sentient spirit, that to which transmigratory conditions pertain, is also of two kinds, the appetent and non-appetent. The appetent is the spirit associated with an organism and organs; the non-appetent is the spirit apart from organism and organs. The details of all this are to be found in the Pañchártha-bháshyadípiká and other works. The cause is that which retracts into itself and evolves the whole creation. This though one is said to be divided according to a difference of attributes and actions (into Maheśvara, Vishṇu, &c.) The Lord is the possessor of infinite, visual, and active power. He is absolutely first as connected eternally with this lordship or supremacy, as possessing a supremacy not adventitious or contingent. This is expounded by the author of the Ádarśa, and other institutional authorities.

Union is a conjunction of the soul with God through the intellect, and is of two degrees, that characterised by action, and that characterised by cessation of action. Of these, union characterised by action consists of pious muttering, meditation, and so forth; union characterised by cessation of action is called consciousness, [108]&c.

Rite or ritual is activity efficacious of merit as its end. It is of two orders, the principal and the subsidiary. Of these, the principal is the direct means of merit, religious exercise. Religious exercise is of two kinds, acts of piety and postures. The acts of piety are bathing with sand, lying upon sand, oblations, mutterings, and devotional perambulation. Thus the revered Nakulíśa says:—

Thus the author of the aphorisms says:—

Laughter is a loud laugh, Aha, Aha, by dilatation of the throat and lips. Song is a celebration of the qualities, glories, &c., of Maheśvara, according to the conventions of the Gandharva-śástra, or art of music. The dance also is to be employed according to the ars saltatoria, accompanied with gesticulations with hands and feet, and with motions of the limbs, and with outward indications of internal sentiment. The ejaculation hum is a sacred utterance, like the bellowing of a bull, accomplished by a contact of the tongue with the palate, an imitation of the sound hudung, ascribed to a bull, like the exclamation Vashat. Where the uninitiated are, all this should be gone through in secret. Other details are too familiar to require exposition.

The postures are snoring, trembling, limping, wooing, acting absurdly, talking nonsensically. Snoring is showing all the signs of being asleep while really awake. Trembling is a convulsive movement of the joints as if under an attack of rheumatism. Limping is walking as if the legs were disabled. Wooing is simulating the gestures of an innamorato on seeing a young and pretty woman. Acting absurdly is doing acts which every one dislikes, as if bereft of all sense of what should and what should not[109] be done. Talking nonsensically is the utterance of words which contradict each other, or which have no meaning, and the like.

The subsidiary religious exercise is purificatory subsequent ablution for putting an end to the sense of unfitness from begging, living on broken food, &c. Thus it is said by the author of the aphorisms: Bearing the marks of purity by after-bathing.

(It has been stated above that omniscience, a form of the cognitive power, is cognition of principles ever arising and pervaded by truth, relative to all matters declared or not declared, summary, or in detail). The summary is the enouncement of the subjects of attributes generally. This is accomplished in the first aphorism: (Now then we shall expound the Páśupata union and rites of Paśupati). Detail is the fivefold enouncement of the five categories according to the instruments of true knowledge. This is to be found in the Ráśíkara-bháshya. Distribution is the distinct enouncement of these categories, as far as possible according to definitions. It is an enumeration of these according to their prevailing characters, different from that of other recognised systems. For example, the cessation of pain (or emancipation) is in other systems (as in the Sānkhya) the mere termination of miseries, but in this system it is the attainment of supremacy or of the divine perfections. In other systems the create is that which has become, and that which shall become, but in this system it is eternal, the spirits, and so forth, the sentient and insentient. In other systems the principium is determined in its evolution or creative activity by the efficacy of works, whereas in this system the principium is the Lord not thus determined. In other institutes union results in isolation, &c., while in these institutes it results in cessation of pains by attainment of the divine perfections. In other systems paradise and similar spheres involve a return to metempsychosis, but in this system they result in nearness to the Supreme Being, either[110] followed or not followed by such return to transmigratory experiences.

Great, indeed, an opponent may say, is this aggregate of illusions, since if God's causality be irrespective of the efficacy of works, then merits will be fruitless, and all created things will be simultaneously evolved (there being no reason why this should be created at one time, and that at another), and thus there will emerge two difficulties. Think not so, replies the Páśupata, for your supposition is baseless. If the Lord, irrespective of the efficacy of works, be the cause of all, and thus the efficacy of works be without results, what follows? If you rejoin that an absence of motives will follow, in whom, we ask, will this absence of motives follow? If the efficacy of works be without result, will causality belong to the doer of the works as to the Lord? It cannot belong to the doer of the works, for it is allowed that the efficacy of works is fruitful only when furthered by the will of the creator, and the efficacy so furthered may sometimes be fruitless, as in the case of the works of Yayáti, and others. From this it will by no means follow that no one will engage in works, for they will engage in them as the husbandman engages in husbandry, though the crop be uncertain. Again, sentient creatures engage in works because they depend on the will of the creator. Nor does the causality pertain to the Lord alone, for as all his desires are already satisfied, he cannot be actuated by motives to be realised by works. As for your statement, continues the Páśupata, that all things will be simultaneously evolved, this is unreasonable, inasmuch as we hold that causal efficiency resides in the unobstructed active power which conforms itself to the will of the Lord, whose power is inconceivable. It has accordingly been said by those versed in sacred tradition:—

[111]

Some one may urge: In another system emancipation is attained through a knowledge of God, where does the difference lie? Say not so, replies the Páśupata, for you will be caught in a trilemma. Is the mere knowledge of God the cause of emancipation, or the presentation, or the accurate characterisation, of God? Not the mere knowledge, for then it would follow that the study of any system would be superfluous, inasmuch as without any institutional system one might, like the uninstructed, attain emancipation by the bare cognition that Mahádeva is the lord of the gods. Nor is presentation or intuition of the deity the cause of emancipation, for no intuition of the deity is competent to sentient creatures burdened with an accumulation of various impurities, and able to see only with the eyes of the flesh. On the third alternative, viz., that the cause of emancipation is an accurate characterisation of the deity, you will be obliged to consent to our doctrine, inasmuch as such accurate characterisation cannot be realised apart from the system of the Páśupatas. Therefore it is that our great teacher has said:—

Therefore those excellent persons who aspire to the highest end of man must adopt the system of the Páśupatas, which undertakes the exposition of the five categories.

A. E. G.

[112]

CHAPTER VII.

THE ŚAIVA-DARŚANA.

[The seventh system in Mádhava's Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha is the Śaiva-darśana. This sect is very prevalent in the South of India, especially in the Tamil country; it is said to have arisen there about the eleventh century a.d. Several valuable contributions have been lately made to our knowledge of its tenets in the publications of the Rev. H. R. Hoisington and the Rev. T. Foulkes. The former especially, by his excellent articles in the American Oriental Society's Journal, has performed a great service to the students of Hindu philosophy. He has there translated the Tattuva-Kaṭṭalei, or law of the Tattwas, the Śiva-Gnánapotham, or instruction in the knowledge of God, and the Śiva-Pirakásam, or light of Śiva, and the three works shed immense light on the outline as given by Mádhava. One great use of the latter is to enable us to recognise the original Sanskrit names in their Tamil disguise, no easy matter occasionally, as aṛul for anugraha and tíḍchei for díkshá may testify.

The Śaivas have considerable resemblance to the Theistic Sánkhya; they hold that God, souls, and matter are from eternity distinct entities, and the object of philosophy is to disunite the soul from matter and gradually to unite it to God. Śiva is the chief deity of the system, and the relation between the three is quaintly expressed by the allegory of a beast, its fetters, and its owner. Paśupati is a well-known name of Śiva, as the master or creator of all things.[113]

There seem to be three different sets of so-called Saiva sútras. One is in five books, called by Colebrooke the Paśupati-śástra, which is probably the work quoted by Mádhava in his account of the Nakulíśa Páśupatas; another is in three books, with a commentary by Kshemarája, with its first sútra, chaítanyam átmá. The third was commented on by Abhinava-gupta, and opens with the śloka given in the Sarva-Darśana-Saṅgraha, p. 91, lines 1-4. The MS. which I consulted in Calcutta read the first words—

None of these works, however, appear to be the authority of the present sect. They seem chiefly to have relied on the twenty-eight Ágamas and some of the Puráṇas. A list of the Ágamas is given in Mr. Foulkes' "Catechism of the Śaiva Religion;" and of these the Kiraṇa and Karaṇa are quoted in the following treatise.]

THE ŚAIVA-DARŚANA.

Certain, however, of the Máheśvara sect receiving the system of truth authoritatively laid down in the Śaiva Ágama,[112] reject the foregoing opinion that "the Supreme Being is a cause as independent of our actions, &c.," on the ground of its being liable to the imputation of partiality and cruelty. They, on the contrary, hold the opinion that "the Supreme Being is a cause in dependence on our actions, &c.;" and they maintain that there are three categories distinguished as the Lord, the soul, and the world (or literally "the master," "the cattle," and "the fetter"). As has been said by those well versed in the Tantra doctrines—

[114]

The meaning of this is as follows:—Its three categories are the three before mentioned; its four feet are learning, ceremonial action, meditation, and morality, hence it is called the great Tantra, possessed of three categories and four feet. Now the "souls" are not independent, and the "fetters" are unintelligent, hence the Lord, as being different from these, is first declared; next follows the account of the souls as they agree with him in possessing intelligence; lastly follow the "fetters" or matter, such is the order of the arrangement.[113] Since the ceremony of initiation is the means to the highest human end, and this cannot be accomplished without knowledge which establishes the undoubted greatness of the hymns, the Lords of the hymns, &c., and is a means for the ascertainment of the real nature of the "cattle," the "fetter," and the "master," we place as first the "foot" of knowledge (jñána) which makes known all this unto us.[114] Next follows the "foot" of ceremonial action (kriyá) which declares the various rules of initiation with the divers component parts thereof. Without meditation the end cannot be attained, hence the "foot" of meditation (yoga) follows next, which declares the various kinds of yoga with their several parts. And as meditation is worthless without practice, i.e., the fulfilling what is enjoined and the abstaining from what is [115]forbidden, lastly follows the fourth "foot" of practical duty (charyá), which includes all this.

Now Śiva is held to be the Lord (or master). Although participation in the divine nature of Śiva belongs to liberated souls and to such beings as Vidyeśvara, &c., yet these are not independent, since they depend on the Supreme Being; and the nature of an effect is recognised to belong to the worlds, &c., which resemble him, from the very fact of the orderly arrangement of their parts. And from their thus being effects we infer that they must have been caused by an intelligent being. By the strength of this inference is the universal acknowledgment of a Supreme Being confirmed.

"But may we not object that it is not proved that the body is thus an effect? for certainly none has ever, at any time or place, seen a body being made by any one." We grant it: yet it is not proper to deny that a body has some maker on the ground that its being made has not been seen by any one, since this can be established from inference [if not from actual perception]. Bodies, &c., must be effects, because they possess an orderly arrangement of parts, or because they are destructible, as jars, &c.; and from their being effects it is easy to infer that they must have been caused by an intelligent being. Thus the subject in the argument [sc. bodies, &c.] must have had a maker, from the fact that it is an effect, like jars, &c.; that which has the afore-mentioned middle term (sádhana) must have the afore-mentioned major (sádhya); and that which has not the former will not have the latter, as the soul, &c.[115] The argument which establishes the authority of the original inference to prove a Supreme Being has been given elsewhere, so we refrain from giving it at length here. In fact, that God is the universal agent, but not irrespective of the actions done by living beings, is proved by the current verse[116]—

[116]

Nor can you object that this opinion violates God's independence, since it does not really violate an agent's independence to allow that he does not act irrespectively of means; just as we say that the king's bounty shows itself in gifts, but these are not irrespective of his treasurer. As has been said by the Siddha Guru—

And thus we conclude that inference (as well as Śruti) establishes the existence of an agent who knows the various fruits [of action], their means, material causes, &c., according to the laws of the various individual merits. This has been thus declared by the venerable Bṛihaspati—

God's omniscience also is proved from his being identical with everything, and also from the fact that an ignorant being cannot produce a thing.[118] This has been said by the illustrious Mṛigendra[119]—

[117]

"Well," our opponents may say, "we concede that God is an independent maker, but then he has no body.[120] Now experience shows that all effects, as jars, &c., are produced by beings possessed of bodies, as potters, &c.; but if God were possessed of a body, then he would be like us subject to trouble, and no longer be omniscient or omnipotent." We, however, deny this, for we see that the incorporeal soul does still produce motion, &c., in its associated body; moreover, even though we conceded that God did possess a body, we should still maintain that the alleged defects would not necessarily ensue. The Supreme Being, as he has no possible connection with the fetters of matter, such as mala,[121] action, &c., cannot have a material body, but only a body of pure energy (Sákta),[122] since we know that his body is composed of the five hymns which are forms of Śakti, according to the well-known text: "The Supreme has the Iśána as his head, the Tatpurusha as his mouth, the Aghora as his heart, the Vámedeva as his secret parts, and the Sadyojáta as his feet."[123] And this body, created according to his own will, is not like our bodies, but is the cause of the five operations of the Supreme, which are respectively grace, obscuration, destruction, preservation, and production.[124] This has been said in the Śrímat Mṛigendra—

[118]

And it has also been said elsewhere—

If you object to this view that "such passages in the Ágamas as 'He is five-faced and fifteen-eyed,' assert prominently the fact that the Supreme Being is endowed with a body, organs, &c.," we concede what you say, but we maintain that there is no contradiction in his assuming such forms to show his mercy to his devoted servants, since meditation, worship, &c., are impossible towards a Being entirely destitute of form. This has been said in the Paushkara—

And similarly elsewhere—

Bhojarája[125] has thus detailed the five operations—

Now these five operations, in the view of the pure Path, are held to be performed directly by Śiva, but in that of the toilsome Path they are ascribed to Ananta,[126] as is declared in the Śrímat Karaṇa[127]—

[119]

It must here be understood that the word Śiva includes in its proper meaning "the Lord," all those who have attained to the state of Śiva, as the Lords of the Mantras, Maheśwara, the emancipated souls who have become Śivas, and the inspired teachers (váchakas), together with all the various means, as initiation, &c., for obtaining the state of Śiva. Thus has been explained the first category, the Lord (pati).

We now proceed to explain the second category, the soul (paśu). The individual soul which is also known by such synonyms as the non-atomic,[128] the Kshetrajña, or knower of the body,[129] &c., is the Paśu. For we must not say with the Chárvákas that it is the same as the body, since on this view we could not account for memory, as there is a proverb that one man cannot remember what another has seen. Nor may we say with the Naiyáyikas that it is cognisable by perception,[130] as this would involve an ad infinitum regressus. As has been said—

Nor must we hold it non-pervading with the Jainas, nor momentary with the Bauddhas, since it is not limited by space or time. As has been said—

[120]

Nor may we say with the Vedántin that it is only one, since the apportionment of different fruits proves that there are many individual souls; nor with the Sánkhyas that it is devoid of action, since, when all the various "fetters" are removed, Śruti informs us of a state of identity with Śiva, which consists in intelligence in the form of an eternal and infinite vision and action.[132] This has been declared in the Śrímat Mṛigendra—

And again—

It is also said in the Tattva-prakáśa—

Now the souls are threefold, as denominated vijñánákaláḥ, pralayákaláḥ, and sakaláḥ.[133] (a.) The first are those who are under the influence of mala only, since their actions are cancelled by receiving their proper fruits, or [121]by abstraction, contemplation, and knowledge, and since they have no "fetters" in the form of enjoyments, such as kalá, &c. (which fetters would, however, be the cause of cancelling actions by bringing about their proper fruit). (b.) The second are those who are under the influence of mala and karman, since in their case kalá, &c., are destroyed by mundane destructions, hence their name pralayákala. (c.) The third are those who are bound in the three fetters of mala, máyá, and karman, hence their name sakala. The first class are again subdivided into samápta-kalusháḥ and asamápta-kalusháḥ, according as their inherent corruption is perfectly exhausted or not. The former,—having received the mature penalties of their corruptions,—are now, as foremost of men and worthy of the privilege, raised by Śiva's favour to the rank of the Lords of Knowledge (the Vidyeśvaras), Ananta, and the rest. This ogdoad of the Lords of Knowledge is described in the Bahudaivatya—

The latter Śiva, in his mercy, raises to the rank of the seventy million Mantras.[134] All this is explained in the Tattva-prakáśa.[135] Similarly Soma-Śambhu has said—

[122]

The Pralayákaláḥ are also twofold, as being pakvapáśadvaya or not, i.e., those in whom the two remaining fetters are matured, and those in whom they are not. The former attain liberation, but the latter, by the power of karman, are endowed with the puryashṭaka[137] body, and pass through various births. As has been said in the Tattva-prakáśa—

The puryashṭaka is also thus described in the same work—

This is thus explained by Aghora Śiva Áchárya, "the puryashṭaka is a subtile body apportioned to each individual soul, which continues from the creation until the close of the kalpa, or until liberation: it is composed of the thirty[138] tattvas beginning with 'earth' and ending with kalá." As has been said in the Tattva-sangraha—

The following is the full meaning of this passage:—The word "internal organ," which properly includes "mind," "intelligence," "egoism," and "reason,"[139] includes also the seven tattvas which enter into the production of enjoyment [or experience], viz., those called kalá, time, fate, knowledge, concupiscence, nature, and quality;[140] the [123]words "thought" (dhí) and karman signify the five cognisable gross elements, and their originators, the subtile rudiments. By the word "instruments" are comprehended the ten organs of sense and action.

"But is it not declared in the Śrímat Kálottara that 'The set of five, sound, touch, form, taste and smell, intelligence, mind and egoism, these constitute the puryashṭaka?'"

How, then, can any different account be maintained? We grant this, and hence the venerable Ráma Kaṇṭha has explained that sútra in its literal meaning [i. e., as puryashṭaka, is derived from ashṭa, "eight"], so why should we be prolix in the discussion? Still, if you ask how we can reconcile our account with the strict nominal definition of puryashṭaka, we reply that there is really no contradiction, as we maintain that it is composed of a set of eight in the following manner:—(1.) The five elements; (2.) the five rudiments; (3.) the five organs of knowledge; (4.) those of action; (5.) the fourfold internal organ; (6.) their instrument;[141] (7.) nature [prakṛiti]; and (8.) the class composed of the five, beginning with kalá, which form a kind of case.[142]

Now in the case of some of those souls who are joined to the puryashṭaka body, Maheśvara Ananta having compassionated them as possessed of peculiar merit, constitutes them here as lords of the world; as has been said—

The class called sakala is also divided into two, as pakvakalusha and apakvakalusha. As for the former, the Supreme Being, in conformity with their maturity (paripáka), [124]puts forth a power agreeable thereto, and transfers them to the position of the hundred and eighteen Lords of the Mantras, signified by the words Maṇḍalí, &c., as has been said—

In their case again, the Supreme, having assumed the form of a teacher, stops the continued accession of maturity and contracts his manifested power, and ultimately grants to them liberation by the process of initiation; as has been said—

It is also said in the Srímad Mṛigendra—

All this has been explained at great length by Náráyaṇa-Kaṇṭha, and there it is to be studied; but we are obliged to pass on through fear of prolixity.

But as for the second class, or those called apakvakalusha, the Supreme Being, as impelled by the desert of their respective actions, appoints them, as bound and endued with infinitesimal bodies, to enjoy the rewards of their previous actions.[144] As has been said—

[125]

We now proceed to describe the third category, matter (or páśa). This is fourfold, mala,[1] karman, máyá, and rodha-śakti.[145] But it may be objected, "Is it not said in the Śaiva Ágamas that the chief things are the Lord, souls, and matter? Now the Lord has been shown to mean Śiva, 'souls' mean atoms (or beings endowed with atomic bodies), and matter (or 'bond') is said to be the pentad,[146] hence matter will be fivefold. How then is it now reckoned to be only fourfold?" To this we reply as follows:—Although the vindu or nasal dot, which is the germinal atom of máyá, and is called a Śiva-tattva, may be well regarded as material in comparison with the highest liberation as defined by the attainment of the state of Śiva, still it cannot really be considered as matter when we remember that it is a secondary kind of liberation as causing the attainment of the state of such deities as Vidyeśvara, &c. Thus we see [126]there is no contradiction. Hence it has been said in the Tattva-prakáśa—

And again in the Srímad Mṛigendra—

The following is the meaning of this couplet:—

(1.) "Enveloping," because mala exceedingly obscures and veils the soul's powers of vision and action; "controlling," because mala, a natural impurity, controls the soul by its independent influence. As has been said—

(2.) The "overpowerer" is the obscuring power; this is called a "bond" [or matter] in a metaphorical sense, since this energy of Śiva obscures the soul by superintending matter [rather than by itself partaking of the nature of matter].

Thus it has been said—

(3.) Action [or rather its consequences, karman] as being performed by those who desire the fruit. It is in the form of merit or demerit, like the seed and shoot, and it is eternal in a never-beginning series. As has been said in the Śrímat Kiraṇa—

[127]

(4.) "Máyá," because herein as an energy of the Divine Being all the world is potentially contained (máti) at a mundane destruction, and again at a creation it all comes (yáti) into manifestation, hence the derivation of the name. This has been said in the Śrímat Saurabheya—

Although much more might be added on this topic, yet we stop here through fear of extending this treatise too far. Thus have the three categories been declared,—the Lord, the soul, and matter.

A different mode of treating the subject is found in the Jñánaratnávalí, &c., in such lines as—

But our readers must seek for full information from the work itself. Thus our account of the system is complete.

E. B. C.

[128]

CHAPTER VIII.

THE PRATYABHIJNA-DARSANA, OR RECOGNITIVE SYSTEM.

Other Máheśvaras are dissatisfied with the views set out in the Śaiva system as erroneous in attributing to motiveless and insentient things causality (in regard to the bondage and liberation of transmigrating spirits). They therefore seek another system, and proclaim that the construction of the world (or series of environments of those spirits) is by the mere will of the Supreme Lord. They pronounce that this Supreme Lord, who is at once other than and the same with the several cognitions and cognita, who is identical with the transcendent self posited by one's own consciousness, by rational proof, and by revelation, and who possesses independence, that is, the power of witnessing all things without reference to aught ulterior, gives manifestation, in the mirror of one's own soul, to all entities[150] as if they were images reflected upon it. Thus looking upon recognition as a new method for the attainment of ends and of the highest end, available to all men alike, without any the slightest trouble and exertion, such as external and internal worship, suppression of the breath, and the like, these Máheśvaras set forth the system of recognition (pratyabhijñá). The extent of this system is thus described by one of their authorities—

The first aphorism in their text-book is as follows[151]:—

[This aphorism may be developed as follows]:—

"Somehow or other," by a propitiation, effected by God, of the lotus feet of a spiritual director identical with God, "having reached," having fully attained, this condition, having made it the unintercepted object of fruition to myself. Thus knowing that which has to be known, he is qualified to construct a system for others: otherwise the system would be a mere imposture.

Maheśvara is the reality of unintermitted self-luminousness, beatitude, and independence, by portions of whose divine essence Vishṇu, Viriñchi, and other deities are deities, who, though they transcend the fictitious world, are yet implicated in the infinite illusion.

The condition of being a slave to Maheśvara is the being a recipient of that independence or absoluteness which is the essence of the divine nature, a slave being one to whom his lord grants all things according to his will and pleasure (i.e., dásya, from dá).

The word mankind imports that there is no restriction of the doctrine to previously qualified students. Whoever he may be to whom this exposition of the divine nature is made, he reaps its highest reward, the emanatory principium itself operating to the highest end of the transmigrating souls. It has been accordingly laid down in the Śiva-dṛishṭi by that supreme guide the revered Sománandanátha—

The word also excludes the supposition that there is room in self which has recognised the nature of Maheśvara, and which manifests to itself its own identity with him, and is therefore fully satisfied, for any other motive than felicity for others. The well-being of others is a motive, whatever may be said, for the definition of a motive applies to it: for there is no such divine curse laid upon man that self-regard should be his sole motive to the exclusion of a regard for others. Thus Akshapáda (i. 24) defines a motive: A motive is that object towards which a man energises.

The preposition upa in upapádayami (I set forth) indicates proximity: the result is the bringing of mankind near unto God.

Hence the word all in the phrase the method of attaining all felicities. For when the nature of the Supreme Being is attained, all felicities, which are but the efflux thereof, are overtaken, as if a man acquired the mountain Rohaṇa (Adam's Peak), he would acquire all the treasures it contains. If a man acquire the divine nature, what else is there that he can ask for? Accordingly Utpaláchárya says—

We have thus explained the motive expressed in the words the method of attaining all felicities, on the supposition that the compound term is a Tatpurusha genitively constructed. Let it be taken as a Bahuvríhi or relative compound. Then the recognition of Maheśvara, the knowing him through vicarious idols, has for its motive the full attainment, the manifestation, of all felicities, of every[131] external and internal permanent happiness in their proper nature. In the language of everyday life, recognition is a cognition relative to an object represented in memory: for example, This (perceived) is the same (as the remembered) Chaitra. In the recognition propounded in this system,—there being a God whose omnipotence is learnt from the accredited legendaries, from accepted revelation, and from argumentation,—there arises in relation to my presented personal self the cognition that I am that very God,—in virtue of my recollection of the powers of that God.

This same recognition I set forth. To set forth is to enforce. I establish this recognition by a stringent process which renders it convincing. [Such is the articulate development of the first aphorism of the Recognitive Institutes.]

Here it may be asked: If soul is manifested only as consubstantial with God, why this laboured effort to exhibit the recognition? The answer is this:—The recognition is thus exhibited, because though the soul is, as you contend, continually manifested as self-luminous (and therefore identical with God), it is nevertheless under the influence of the cosmothetic illusion manifested as partial, and therefore the recognition must be exhibited by an expansion of the cognitive and active powers in order to achieve the manifestation of the soul as total (the self being to the natural man a part, to the man of insight the whole, of the divine pleroma). Thus, then, the syllogism: This self must be God, because it possesses cognitive and active powers; for so far forth as any one is cognitive and active, to that extent he is a lord, like a lord in the world of everyday life, or like a king, therefore the soul is God. The five-membered syllogism is here employed, because so long as we deal with the illusory order of things, the teaching of the Naiyáyikas may be accepted. It has thus been said by the son of Udayákara—

And again—

And also—

Sománandanátha also says—

Again at the end of the section on knowledge—

The following is an explanation of Abhinava-gupta:—The text, "After that as it shines shines the all of things, by the light of that shines diversely this All," teaches that God illumines the whole round of things by the glory of His luminous intelligence, and that the diversity or plurality of the object world, whereby the light[133] which irradiates objects is a blue, a yellow light, and the like, arises from diversity of tint cast upon the light by the object. In reality, God is without plurality or difference, as transcending all limitations of space, time, and figure. He is pure intelligence, self-luminousness, the manifester; and thus we may read in the Śaiva aphorisms, "Self is intelligence." His synonymous titles are Intelligential Essence, Unintermitted Cognition, Irrespective Intuition, Existence as a mass of Beatitude, Supreme Domination. This self-same existing self is knowledge.

By pure knowledge and action (in the passage of Sománandanátha cited above) are meant real or transcendent cognition and activity. Of these, the cognition is self-luminousness, the activity is energy constructive of the world or series of spheres of transmigratory experience. This is described in the section on activity—

And at the close of the same section—

According to these principles, causality not pertaining either to the insentient or to the non-divine intelligence, the mere will of Maheśvara, the absolute Lord, when he wills to emanate into thousands of forms, as this or that difference, this or that action, this or that modification of entity, of birth, continuance, and the like, in the series of transmigratory environments,—his mere will is his progressively higher and higher activity, that is to say, his universal creativeness.[134]

How he creates the world by his will alone is clearly exhibited in the following illustration—

If clay and similar materials were really the substantial cause of the jar and the rest, how could they be produced by the mere volition of the thaumaturgist? If you say: Some jars and some plants are made of clay, and spring from seeds, while others arise from the bare volition of the thaumaturgist; then we should inform you that it is a fact notorious to all the world that different things must emanate from different materials.

As for those who say that a jar or the like cannot be made without materials to make it of, and that when a thaumaturgist makes one he does so by putting atoms in motion by his will, and so composing it: they may be informed that unless there is to be a palpable violation of the causal relation, all the co-efficients, without exception, must be desiderated; to make the jar there must be the clay, the potter's staff, the potter's wheel, and all the rest of it; to make a body there must be the congress of the male and female, and the successive results of that congress. Now, if that be the case, the genesis of a jar, a body, or the like, upon the mere volition of the thaumaturgist, would be hardly possible.

On the other hand, there is no difficulty in supposing that Mahádeva, amply free to remain within or to over-step any limit whatever, the Lord, manifold in his operancy, the intelligent principle, thus operates. Thus it is that Vasuguptáchárya says—

"To him that painted this world-picture without materials, without appliances, without a wall to paint it on,—to him be glory, to him resplendent with the lunar digit, to him that bears the trident."

It may be asked: If the supersensible self be no other[135] than God, how comes this implication in successive transmigratory conditions? The answer is given in the section treating of accredited institution—

It may be asked: If the subject and the object are identical, what difference can there be between the self bound and the self liberated in regard to the objects cognisable by each? The answer to this question is given in a section of the Tattvártha-Saṅgraha—

An objection may be raised: If the divine nature is essential to the soul, there can be no occasion to seek for this recognition; for if all requisites be supplied, the seed does not fail to germinate because it is unrecognised. Why, then, this toilsome effort for the recognition of the soul? To such an objection we reply: Only listen to the secret we shall tell you. All activity about objects is of two degrees, being either external, as the activity of the seed in developing the plant, or internal, as the activity which determines felicity, which consists in an intuition which terminates in the conscious self. The first degree of activity presupposes no such recognition as the system proposes, the second does presuppose it. In the Recognitive System the peculiar activity is the exertion of the power of unifying personal and impersonal spirit, a power which is the attainment of the highest and of mediate ends, the activity consisting in the intuition I am God. To this activity a recognition of the essential nature of the soul is a pre-requisite.

It may be urged that peculiar activity terminating in the conscious self is observed independent of recognition.[136] To this it is replied: A certain damsel, hearing of the many good qualities of a particular gallant, fell in love with him before she had seen him, and agitated by her passion and unable to suffer the pain of not seeing him, wrote to him a love-letter descriptive of her condition. He at once came to her, but when she saw him she did not recognise in him the qualities she had heard about; he appeared much the same as any other man, and she found no gratification in his society. So soon, however, as she recognised those qualities in him as her companions now pointed them out, she was fully gratified. In like manner, though the personal self be manifested as identical with the universal soul, its manifestation effects no complete satisfaction so long as there is no recognition of those attributes; but as soon as it is taught by a spiritual director to recognise in itself the perfections of Maheśvara, his omniscience, omnipotence, and other attributes, it attains the whole pleroma of being.

It is therefore said in the fourth section—

This system has been treated in detail by Abhinava-gupta and other teachers, but as we have in hand a summary exposition of systems, we cannot extend the discussion of it any further lest our work become too prolix. This then may suffice.[152]

A. E. G.

[137]

CHAPTER IX.

THE RASEŚVARA-DARŚANA OR MERCURIAL SYSTEM.[153]

Other Máheśvaras there are who, while they hold the identity of self with God, insist upon the tenet that the liberation in this life taught in all the systems depends upon the stability of the bodily frame, and therefore celebrate the virtues of mercury or quicksilver as a means of strengthening the system. Mercury is called párada, because it is a means of conveyance beyond the series of transmigratory states. Thus it has been said—

And again in the Rasárṇava—

It may be urged that the literal interpretation of these words is incorrect, the liberation in this life being explicable in another manner. This objection is not allowable, liberation being set out in the six systems as subsequent to the death of the body, and upon this there can be no reliance, and consequently no activity to attain to it free from misgivings. This is also laid down in the same treatise[138]—

Govinda-bhagavat also says—

The body, some one may say, is seen to be perishable, how can its permanency be effected? Think not so, it is replied, for though the body, as a complexus of six sheaths or wrappers of the soul, is dissoluble, yet the body, as created by Hara and Gaurí under the names of mercury and mica, may be perdurable. Thus it is said in the Rasahṛidaya—

The ascetic, therefore, who aspires to liberation in this life should first make to himself a glorified body. And inasmuch as mercury is produced by the creative conjunction of Hara and Gaurí, and mica is produced from Gaurí, mercury and mica are severally identified with Hara and Gaurí in the verse—

This is very little to say about the matter. In the Raseśvara-siddhánta many among the gods, the Daityas, the Munis, and mankind, are declared to have attained to liberation in this life by acquiring a divine body through the efficacy of quicksilver.[139]

The meaning of this, as explicated by Parameśvara to Parameśvarí, is as follows:—

The swooning state of mercury is thus described—

The bound condition is described in another place as follows:—

Some one may urge: If the creation of mercury by Hara and Gaurí were proved, it might be allowed that the body could be made permanent; but how can that be proved? The objection is not allowable, inasmuch as that can be proved by the eighteen modes of elaboration. Thus it is stated by the authorities[140]—

And these modes of elaboration are enumerated thus—

These treatments have been described at length by Govinda-bhagavat, Sarvajña-rámeśvara and the other ancient authorities, and are here omitted to avoid prolixity.

The mercurial system is not to be looked upon as merely eulogistic of the metal, it being immediately, through the conservation of the body, a means to the highest end, liberation. Thus it is said in the Rasárṇava—

"Declare to me, O god, that supremely efficacious destruction of the blood, that destruction of the body, imparted by thee, whereby it attained the power of flying about in the sky. Goddess (he replied), quicksilver is to be applied both to the blood and to the body. This makes the appearance of body and blood alike. A man should first try it upon the blood, and then apply it to the body."

It will be asked: Why should we make this effort to acquire a celestial body, seeing that liberation is effected by the self-manifestation of the supreme principle, existence, intelligence, and beatitude? We reply: This is no objection, such liberation being inaccessible unless we acquire a healthy body. Thus it is said in the Rasahṛidaya—

[141]

Some one will object: It is the nature of the personal soul to pass through a series of embodiments, and to be liberated is to be extricated from that series of embodiments; how, then, can these two mutually exclusive conditions pertain to the same bodily tenement? The objection is invalid, as unable to stand before the following dilemmatic argument:—Is this extrication, as to the nature of which all the founders of institutes are at one, to be held as cognisable or as incognisable? If it is incognisable, it is a pure chimera; if it is cognisable, we cannot dispense with life, for that which is not alive cannot be cognisant of it. Thus it is said in the Rasasiddhánta—

And this is not to be supposed to be unprecedented, for the adherents of the doctrine of Vishṇu-svámin maintain the eternity of the body of Vishṇu half-man and half-lion. Thus it is said in the Sákára-siddhi[142]—

If the objection be raised that the body of the man-lion, which appears as composite and as coloured, is incompatible with real existence, it may be replied: How can the body of the man-lion be otherwise than really existent, proved as it is by three kinds of proof: (1.) by the intuition of Śanaka and others; (2.) by Vedic texts such as, A thousand heads has Purusha; and (3.) by Puráṇic texts such as, That wondrous child, lotus-eyed, four-armed, armed with the conch-shell, the club, and other weapons? Real existence and other like predicates are affirmed also by Śríkánta-miśra, the devoted adherent of Vishṇu-svámin. Let, then, those who aspire to the highest end of personal souls be assured that the eternity of the body which we are setting forth is by no means a mere innovation. It has thus been said—

It is mercury alone that can make the body undecaying and immortal, as it is said—

Why describe the efficacy of this metal? Its value is proved even by seeing it, and by touching it, as it is said in the Rasárṇava—

[143]

In another place we read—

The sin of disparaging mercury is also set out—

The attainment, then, of the highest end of the personal soul takes place by an intuition of the highest principle by means of the practice of union (ἕνωσις after the acquisition of a divine body in the manner we have described. Thereafter—

A Vedic text also declares: That is Rasa (mercury), having obtained this he becomes beatitude.

Thus, then, it has been shown that mercury alone is the means of passing beyond the burden of transmigratory pains. And conformably we have a verse which sets forth the identity between mercury and the supreme self—

A. E. G.

[145]

CHAPTER X.

THE VAIŚESHIKA OR AULÚKYA DARŚANA.[154]

Whoso wishes to escape the reality of pain, which is established by the consciousness of every soul through its being felt to be essentially contrary to every rational being, and wishes therefore to know the means of such escape,—learns that the knowledge of the Supreme Being is the true means thereof, from the authority of such passages as these (Śvetáśvatara Upan. vi. 20)—

Now the knowledge of the Supreme is to be gained by hearing (śravaṇa), thought (manana), and reflection (bhávaná), as it has been said—

Here thought depends on inference, and inference depends on the knowledge of the vyápti (or universal proposition), and the knowledge of the vyápti follows the right understanding of the categories,—hence the saint Kaṇáda[155] establishes the six categories in his tenfold [146]treatise, commencing with the words, "Now, therefore, we shall explain duty."

In the first book, consisting of two daily lessons, he describes all the categories which are capable of intimate relation. In the first áhnika he defines those which possess "genus" (játi), in the second "genus" (or "generality") itself and "particularity." In the similarly divided second book he discusses "substance," giving in the first áhnika the characteristics of the five elements, and in the second he establishes the existence of space and time. In the third book he defines the soul and the internal sense, the former in the first áhnika, the latter in the second. In the fourth book he discusses the body and its adjuncts, the latter in the first áhnika, and the former in the second. In the fifth book he investigates action; in the first áhnika he considers action as connected with the body, in the second as belonging to the mind. In the sixth book he examines merit and demerit as revealed in Śruti; in the first áhnika he discusses the merit of giving, receiving gifts, &c., in the second the duties of the four periods of religious life. In the seventh book he discusses quality and intimate relation; in the first áhnika he considers the qualities independent of thought, in the second those qualities which are related to it, and also intimate relation. In the eighth book he examines "indeterminate" and "determinate" perception, and means of proof. In the ninth book he discusses the characteristics of intellect. In the tenth book he establishes the different kinds of inference.[156]

The method of this system is said to be threefold, "enunciation," "definition," and "investigation."[157] "But," it may be objected, "ought we not to include 'division,' [147]and so make the method fourfold, not threefold?" We demur to this, because "division" is really included in a particular kind of enunciation. Thus when we declare that substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, and intimate relation are the only six positive categories,—this is an example of enunciation. If you ask "What is the reason for this definite order of the categories?" we answer as follows:—Since "substance" is the chief, as being the substratum of all the categories, we enounce this first; next "quality," since it resides in its generic character in all substances [though different substances have different qualities]; then "action," as it agrees with "substance" and "quality" in possessing "generality;"[158] then "generality," as residing in these three; then "particularity," inasmuch as it possesses "intimate relation;"[159] lastly, "intimate relation" itself; such is the principle of arrangement.

If you ask, "Why do you say that there are only six categories since 'non-existence' is also one?" we answer: Because we wish to speak of the six as positive categories, i.e., as being the objects of conceptions which do not involve a negative idea. "Still," the objector may retort, "how do you establish this definite number 'only six'? for either horn of the alternative fails. For, we ask, is the thing to be thus excluded already thoroughly ascertained or not? If it is thoroughly ascertained, why do you exclude it? and still more so, if it is not thoroughly ascertained? What sensible man, pray, spends his strength in denying that a mouse has horns? Thus your definite number 'only six' fails as being inapplicable." This, however, we cannot admit; if darkness, &c., are allowed to form certainly a seventh category (as "non-existence"), we thus (by our definite number) deny it to be one of the six positive categories,—and if others attempt to include [148]"capacity," "number," &c., which we allow to be certainly positive existences, we thus deny that they make a seventh category. But enough of this long discussion.

Substantiality, &c. (dravyatvádi), i.e., the genera of substance, quality, and action, are the definition of the triad substance, quality, and action respectively. The genus of substance (dravyatva) is that which, while it alike exists with intimate relation in the (eternal) sky and the (transitory) lotus, is itself eternal,[160] and does not exist with intimate relation in smell.[161]

The genus of quality (guṇatva) is that which is immediately subordinate to the genus existence, and exists with intimate relation in whatever is not an intimate or mediate cause.[162] The genus of action (karmatva) is that which is immediately subordinate to the genus existence, and is not found with intimate relation in anything eternal.[163] Generality (or genus, sámánya) is that which is found in many things with intimate relation, and can never be the counter-entity to emergent non-existence.[164] Particularity[165] (viśesha) exists with intimate relation, but it is destitute [149]of generality, which stops mutual non-existence.[166] Intimate relation (samaváya) is that connection which itself has not intimate relation.[167] Such are the definitions of the six categories.

Substance is ninefold,—earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind. The genera of earth, &c. (pṛithivítva), are the definitions of the first four. The genus of earth is that generality which is immediately subordinate to substance, and resides in the same subject with colour produced by baking.[168]

The genus of water is that generality which is found with intimate relation in water, being also found in intimate relation in river and sea. The genus of fire is that generality which is found with intimate relation in fire, being also found with intimate relation in the moon and gold. The genus of air is that which is immediately subordinate to substance, and is found with intimate relation in the organ of the skin.[169]

As ether, space, and time, from their being single, cannot be subordinate genera, their several names stand respectively for their technical appellations. Ether is the abode of particularity, and is found in the same subject with the non-eternal (janya) special quality which is not produced by contact.[170]

Time is that which, being a pervading substance, is the abode of the mediate cause[171] of that idea of remoteness [150](paratva) which is not found with intimate relation in space;[172] while space is that pervading substance which possesses no special qualities and yet is not time.[173] The general terms átmatva and manastva are the respective definitions of soul (átman) and mind (manas). The general idea of soul is that which is subordinate to substance, being also found with intimate relation in that which is without form[174] (amúrtta). The general idea of mind is that which is subordinate to substance, being also found existing with intimate relation in an atom, but [unlike other atoms] not the intimate cause of any substance. There are twenty-four qualities; seventeen are mentioned directly in Kaṇáda's Sútras (i. 1, 6), "colour, taste, smell, touch, number, quantity, severalty, conjunction, disjunction, remoteness, proximity, intelligence, pleasure, pain, desire, aversion, and effort;" and, besides these, seven others are understood in the word "and," viz., gravity, fluidity, viscidity, faculty, merit, demerit, and sound. Their respective genera (rúpatva, &c.) are their several definitions. The class or genus of "colour" is that which is subordinate to quality and exists with intimate relation in blue. In the same way may be formed the definitions of the rest.

"Action" is fivefold, according to the distinction of throwing upwards, throwing downwards, contracting, expanding, and going: revolution, evacuating, &c., being included under "going." The genus of throwing upwards, &c., will be their respective definitions. The genus of throwing upwards is a subordinate genus to action; it exists with intimate relation, and is to be known as the mediate cause of conjunction with a higher place. In the same manner are to be made the definitions of throwing downwards, &c. Generality (or genus) is twofold, extensive and non-extensive; existence is extensive as found with intimate connection in substance and quality, [151]or in quality and action; substance, &c., are non-extensive. The definition of generality has been given before. Particularity and intimate relation cannot be divided,—in the former case in consequence of the infinite number of separate particularities, in the latter from intimate relation being but one; their definitions have been given before.

There is a popular proverb—

"Duality, change produced by baking, and disjunction produced by disjunction,—he whose mind vacillates not in these three is the true Vaiśeshika;" and therefore we will now show the manner of the production of duality, &c.

There is here first the contact of the organ of sense with the object; thence there arises the knowledge of the genus unity; then the distinguishing perception apekshábuddhi [by which we apprehend "this is one," "this is one," &c.]; then the production of duality, dvitva (in the object);[175] then the knowledge of the abstract genus of duality (dvitvatva); then the knowledge of the quality duality as it exists in the two things; then imagination[176] (saṃskára).[177]

But it may here be asked what is the proof of duality, &c., being thus produced from apekshábuddhi? The great doctor (Udayana) maintained that apekshábuddhi must be the producer of duality, &c., because duality is never found separated from it, while, at the same time, we cannot hold apekshábuddhi as the cause only of its being known [and therefore it follows that it must be the cause of its being produced[178]], just as contact is with regard to sound. We, however, maintain the same opinion by a [152]different argument; duality, &c., cannot be held to be made known (jñápya) by that non-eternal apprehension whose object is two or more individual unities (i.e., apekshábuddhi), because these are qualities which reside in a plurality of subjects [and not in any one individual[179]] just as "severalty" does [and, therefore, as apekshábuddhi is not their jñápaka, it must be their janaka].

Next we will describe the order of the successive destructions. From apekshábuddhi arises, simultaneously with the production of duality (dvitva), the destruction of the knowledge of the genus of unity; next from the knowledge of the genus of duality (dvitvatva) arises, simultaneously with the knowledge of the quality duality, the destruction of apekshábuddhi; next from the destruction of apekshábuddhi arises, simultaneously with the knowledge of the two substances, the destruction of the duality; next from the knowledge of the two substances arises, simultaneously with the production of imagination (saṃskára), the destruction of the knowledge of the quality; and next from imagination arises the destruction of the knowledge of the substances.

The evidence for the destruction of one kind of knowledge by another, and for the destruction of another knowledge by imagination, is to be found in the following argument; these knowledges themselves which are the subjects of the discussion are successively destroyed by the rise of others produced from them, because knowledge, like sound, is a special quality of an all-pervading substance, and of momentary duration.[180] I may briefly add, that when you have the knowledge of the genus of unity simultaneously with an action in one of the two things themselves, producing that separation which is the opposite [153]to the conjunction that produced the whole, in that case you have the subsequent destruction of duality produced by the destruction of its abiding-place (the two things); but where you have this separate action taking place simultaneously with the rise of apekshábuddhi, there you have the destruction of duality produced by the united influence of both.[181]

Apekshábuddhi is to be considered as that operation of the mind which is the counter-entity to that emergent non-existence (i.e., destruction) which itself causes a subsequent destruction.[182]

[154]

Next we will inquire in how many moments, commencing with the destruction of the compound of two atoms (the dvyaṇuka), another compound of two atoms is produced, having colour, &c. In the course of this investigation the mode of production will be explained. First, the compound of two atoms is gradually destroyed by the series of steps commencing with the contact of fire;[183] secondly, from the conjunction of fire arises the destruction of the qualities black, &c., in the single atom; thirdly, from another conjunction of fire arises the production of red, &c., in the atom; fourthly, from conjunction with a soul possessing merit arises an action[184] in the atom for the production of a substance; fifthly, by that action is produced a separation of that atom from its former place; sixthly, there is produced thereby the destruction of its conjunction with that former place; seventhly, is produced the conjunction with another atom; eighthly, from these two atoms arises the compound of two atoms; ninthly, from the qualities, &c., of the causes (i.e., the atoms) are produced colour, &c., the qualities of the effect (i.e., the dvyaṇuka). Such is the order of the series of nine moments. The other two series,[185] that of the ten and that of the eleven moments, are omitted for fear of prolixity. Such is the mode of production, if we hold (with the Vaiśeshikas) that the baking process takes place in the [155]atoms of the jar.[186] The Naiyáyikas, however, maintain that the baking process takes place in the jar.

"Disjunction produced by disjunction" is twofold,—that produced by the disjunction of the intimate [or material] causes only, and that produced by the disjunction of the intimate cause and the non-cause [i.e., the place]. We will first describe the former kind.

It is a fixed rule that when the action of breaking arises in the [material] cause which is inseparably connected with the effect [i.e., in one of the two halves of the pot], and produces a disjunction from the other half, there is not produced at that time a disjunction from the place or point of space occupied by the pot; and, again, when there is a disjunction from that point of space occupied by the pot, the disjunction from the other half is not contemporary with it, but has already taken place. For just as we never see smoke without its cause, fire, so we never see that effect of the breaking in the pot which we call the disjunction from the point of space,[187] without there having previously been the origination of that disjunction of the halves which stops the conjunction whereby the pot was brought into being. Therefore the action of breaking in the parts produces the disjunction of one part from another, but not the disjunction from the point of space; next, this disjunction of one part from another produces the destruction of that conjunction which had brought the pot into existence; and thence arises the destruction of the pot, according to the principle, cessante causâ cessat effectus. The pot being thus destroyed, that disjunction, which [156]resides in both the halves (which are the material or intimate causes of the pot) during the time that is marked by the destruction of the pot or perhaps having reference only to one independent half, initiates, in the case of that half where the breaking began, a disjunction from the point of space which had been connected with the pot; but not in the case of the other half, as there is no cause to produce it.[188]

But the second kind is as follows:—As action which arises in the hand, and causes a disjunction from that with which it was in contact, initiates a disjunction[189] from the points of space in which the original conjunction took place; and this is "the disjunction of the intimate cause and the non-cause." When the action in the hand produces an effect in relation to any points of space, it initiates also in the same direction a disjunction of the intimate effect and the non-effect; thus the disjunction of the body [the intimate effect] and the points of space arises from the disjunction of the hand and the points of space [the hand being an intimate or material cause of the body, but the points of space being not a cause]. This second disjunction is not produced by the action of the body, because the body is supposed to be at the time inactive; nor is it produced by the action of the hand, because it is impossible that an action residing in some other place [as the hand] should produce the effect of disjunction [in the body]. Therefore we conclude by exhaustion that we must accept the view—that it is the disjunction of the intimate cause and the [157]non-cause[190] which causes the second disjunction of the body and the points of space.

But an opponent may here object that "what you formerly stated (p. 147) as to existence being denied of darkness, &c., is surely unreasonable; for, in fact, there are no less than four different opinions maintained on this point,—thus (a.) the Bháṭṭa Mímáṃsakas and the Vedántins hold that darkness is a substance; (b.) Śrídhara Áchárya[191] holds that the colour of dark blue is imposed [and thus darkness will be a quality]; (c.) some of the Prábhákara Mímáṃsakas hold that it is the absence of the cognition of light; (d.) the Naiyáyikas, &c., hold that it is the absence of light." In reply, we assert that as for the first alleged opinion (a.) it is quite out of the question, as it is consistent with neither of the two possible alternatives; for if darkness is a substance, it must either be one of the nine well-known substances, earth, &c.,[192] or some different one. But it cannot be any one of the nine, since, under whichever one you would place it, all the qualities of that substance should certainly be found in it; nor can you, on the other hand, assert that it is some substance different from these nine, since, being in itself destitute of qualities, it cannot properly be a substance at all [the very definition of substance being "that which is the substratum of qualities"], and therefore, of course, it cannot be a different substance from the nine. But you may ask, "How can you say that darkness is destitute of qualities, when it is perceived as possessed of the dark blue of the tamála blossom?" We reply, that this is merely an error, as when men say that the [colourless] sky is blue. But enough of this onslaught on ancient sages.[193] (b.) Hence it follows that darkness cannot have its colour imposed upon it, since you cannot have an imposition of colour without supposing some substratum [158]to receive it;[194] and again, we cannot conceive the eye as capable of imposing a colour when deprived of the concurrent cause, the external light. Nor can we accept that it is an impression independent of the eye [i.e., produced by the internal sense, mind], because the concurrence of the eye is not a superfluous but an indispensable condition to its being produced. Nor can you maintain that "absence or non-existence (abháva[195]) is incapable of being expressed by affirmative tense affixes [and, therefore, as we do use such phrases as tenebræ oriuntur, darkness cannot be a mere non-existence"]; because your assertion is too broad, as it would include such cases of non-existence as a mundane collapse, destruction, inattention,[196] &c. [and yet we all know that men do speak of any of these things as past, present, or future, and yet all are cases of abháva]. (c.) Hence darkness cannot be the absence of the cognition of light, since, by the well-known rule that that organ which perceives a certain object can also perceive its absence, it would follow that darkness would be perceived by the mind [since it is the mind which perceives cognitions].[197] Hence we conclude that the fourth or remaining opinion must be the true one, viz., that darkness is only the absence of light. And it need not be objected that it is very difficult to account for the attribution to non-existence of the qualities of existence, for we all see that the quality happiness is attributed to the absence of pain, and the idea of separation is connected with the absence of conjunction. And you need not assert that "this absence of light must be the object of a cognition produced by the eye in dependence on light, since it is the absence of an object possessing colour,[198] as we see in the case of a jar's [159]absence," because by the very rule on which you rely, viz., that that on which the eye depends to perceive an object, it must also depend on to perceive that object's absence, it follows that as there is no dependence of the eye on light to perceive light, it need not depend thereon to perceive this light's absence. Nor need our opponent retort that "the cognition of darkness [as the absence of light] necessitates the cognition of the place where the absence resides [and this will require light]," as such an assertion is quite untenable, for we cannot admit that in order to have a conception of absence it is necessary to have a conception of the place where the absence resides, else we could not have the perception of the cessation of sound, as is implied in such an expression as "the tumult has ceased."[199] Hence, having all these difficulties in his mind, the venerable Kaṇáda uttered his aphorism [as an ipse dixit to settle the question]: "Dravya-guṇa-karma-nish-patti-vaidharmyád abhávas tamas" (Vaiś. Sút. v. 2, 19), "Darkness is really non-existence, since it is dissimilar to the production of substances, qualities, or actions." The same thing has been also established by the argument that darkness is perceived by the eye[200] [without light, whereas all substances, if perceptible at all, require the presence of light as well as of the eye to be visible].

Non-existence (abháva) is considered to be the seventh category, as established by negative proofs. It may be concisely defined as that which, itself not having intimate relation, is not intimate relation;[201] and this is twofold, "relative non-existence"[202] and "reciprocal non-existence."

[160]

The former is again divided into "antecedent," "emergent," and "absolute." "Antecedent" is that non-existence which, though without any beginning, is not everlasting; "emergent" is that which, though having a beginning, is everlasting; "absolute" is that non-existence which abides in its own counter-entity;[203] "reciprocal non-existence" is that which, being different from "absolute," has yet no defined limit [i.e., no terminus ad quem nor terminus a quo, as "antecedent" and "emergent" have].

If you raise the objection that "'reciprocal non-existence' is really the same as 'absolute non-existence,'" we reply that this is indeed to lose one's way in the king's highroad; for "reciprocal non-existence" is that negation whose opposite is held to be identity, as "a jar is not cloth;" but "absolute non-existence" is that negation whose opposite is connection, as "there is no colour in the air."[204] Nor need you here raise the objection that "abháva can never be a means of producing any good to man," for we maintain that it is his summum bonum, in the form of final beatitude, which is only another term for the absolute abolition of all pain [and therefore comes under the category of abháva].

E. B. C.

[161]

CHAPTER XI.

THE AKSHAPÁDA (OR NYÁYA) DARŚANA.

The principle that final bliss, i.e., the absolute abolition of pain, arises from the knowledge of the truth [though in a certain sense universally accepted], is established in a special sense as a particular tenet[205] of the Nyáya school, as is declared by the author of the aphorisms in the words "proof, that which is to be proved, &c.,—from knowledge of the truth as to these things there is the attainment of final bliss." This is the first aphorism of the Nyáya Śástra. Now the Nyáya Śástra consists of five books, and each book contains two "daily portions." In the first daily portion of the first book the venerable Gotama discusses the definitions of nine categories, beginning with "proof," and in the second those of the remaining seven, beginning with "discussion" (váda). In the first daily portion of the second book he examines "doubt," discusses the four kinds of "proof," and refutes the suggested objections to their being instruments of right knowledge; and in the second he shows that "presumption," &c., are really included in the four kinds of "proof" already given [and therefore need not be added by the Mímáṃsakas as separate ones]. In the first daily portion of the third book he examines the soul, the body, the senses, and their objects; in the second, "understanding" (buddhi), and "mind" (manas). In the first daily portion of the fourth book he examines "volition" (pravṛitti), the "faults," [162]"transmigration," "fruit" [of actions], "pain," and "final liberation;" in the second he investigates the truth[206] as to the causes of the "faults," and also "wholes" and "parts." In the first daily portion of the fifth book he discusses the various kinds of futility (játi), and in the second the various kinds of "occasion for rebuke" (nigrahasthána, or "unfitness to be argued with").

In accordance with the principle that "to know the thing to be measured you must first know the measure," "proof" (pramáṇa) is first enunciated, and as this must be done by defining it, we have first a definition of "proof." "Proof" is that which is always accompanied by right knowledge, and is at the same time not disjoined from the proper instruments [as the eye, &c.], and from the site of knowledge [i.e., the soul];[207] and this definition thus includes the peculiar tenet of the Nyáya School that God is a source of right knowledge,[208] as the author of the aphorisms has expressly declared (ii. 68), "and the fact of the Veda's being a cause of right knowledge, like spells and the medical science, follows from the fact that the fit one who gave the Veda was a source of right knowledge." And thus too hath the universally renowned teacher Udayana, who saw to the farthest shore of the ocean of logic, declared in the fourth chapter of the Kusumáñjali:

"Right knowledge is accurate comprehension, and right knowing is the possession thereof; authoritativeness is, according to Gotama's school, the being separated from all absence thereof.

"He in whose intuitive unerring perception, inseparably united to Him and dependent on no foreign inlets, the succession of all the various existing objects is contained,—all the chaff of our suspicion being swept away [163]by the removal of all possible faults as caused by the slightest want of observation in Him,—He, Śiva, is my authority; what have I to do with others, darkened as their authority must ever be with rising doubts?"

"Proof" is fourfold, as being divided into perception, inference, analogy, and testimony. The "thing to be proved" [or the "object of right notion"] is of twelve kinds, viz., soul, body, the senses, their objects, understanding, mind, volition, faults, transmigrations, fruit, pain, and final liberation. "Doubt" is a knowledge whose nature is uncertainty; and this is threefold, as being caused by the object's possessing only qualities which are common to other things also, and therefore not distinctive,—or by its possessing only irrelevant qualities of its own, which do not help us in determining the particular point in question,[209]—or by conflicting testimony. The thing which one proposes to one's self before proceeding to act, is "a motive" (prayojana); this is twofold, i.e., visible and invisible. "An example" is a fact brought forward as a ground for establishing a general principle, and it may be either affirmative or negative.[210] A "tenet" (siddhánta) is something which is accepted as being authoritatively settled as true; it is of four kinds, as being "common to all the schools," "peculiar to one school," "a pregnant assumption" [leading, if conceded, to a further conclusion], and "an implied dogma" (i. 26-31). The "member" (of a demonstration) is a part of the sentence containing an inference for the sake of another; and these are five, the proposition, the reason, the example, the application, and the conclusion (i. 32-38). "Confutation" (tarka, i. 39) is the showing that the admission of a false minor necessitates the admission of a false major[211] (cf. Sút. i. 39, and [164]iv. 3); and this is of eleven kinds, as vyágháta, átmáśraya, itaretaráśraya, &c.

"Ascertainment" (nirṇaya, i. 40) is right knowledge or a perception of the real state of the case. It is of four kinds as produced by perception, inference, analogy, or testimony. "Discussion" (váda) is a particular kind of conversation, having as its end the ascertainment of truth (i. 41). "Wrangling" (jalpa) is the talk of a man only wishing for victory, who is ready to employ arguments for either side of the question (i. 42). "Cavilling" (vitaṇdá) is the talk of a man who does not attempt to establish his own side of the question (i. 43). "Dialogue" (kathá) is the taking of two opposite sides by two disputants. A "fallacy" is an inconclusive reason which is supposed to prove something, and this may be of five kinds, the "erratic," the "contradictory," the "uncertain," the "unproved," and the "precluded" or "mistimed" (Sút. i. 44-49). "Unfairness" (chhala) is the bringing forward a contrary argument by using a term wilfully in an ambiguous sense; this is of three kinds, as there may be fraud in respect of a term, the meaning, or a metaphorical phrase (i. 50-54). "Futility" (játi) is a self-destructive argument (i. 58). This is of twenty-four kinds (as described in the fifth book of the Nyáya aphorisms) (1-38). "Occasion for rebuke" is where the disputant loses his cause [by stupidity], and this is of twenty-two kinds (as described in the fifth book of the aphorisms, 44-67). We do not insert here all the minute subdivisions through fear of being too prolix,—they are fully explained in the aphorisms.

But here an objector may say, "If these sixteen topics, proof, &c., are all thus fully discussed, how is it that it has received the name of the Nyáya Śástra, [as reasoning, i.e., Nyáya, or logic, properly forms only a small part of the topics which it treats of?]" We allow the force of the objection; still as names are proverbially said to be given for some special reason, we maintain that the name Nyáya was[165] rightly applied to Gotama's system, since "reasoning," or inference for the sake of another, is justly held to be a predominant feature from its usefulness in all kinds of knowledge, and from its being a necessary means for every kind of pursuit. So it has been said by Sarvajña, "This is the pre-eminent science of Nyáya from its establishing our doctrines against opponents, and from its producing action;"[212] and by Pakshila Swámin, "This is the science of reasoning (ánvíkshikí) divided into the different categories, 'proof,' &c.; the lamp of all sciences, the means for aiding all actions, the ultimate appeal of all religious duties, well proved in the declarations of science."[213]

But here an objector may say, "When you declare that final liberation arises from the knowledge of the truth, do you mean that liberation ensues immediately upon this knowledge being attained?" We reply, "No," for it is said in the second Nyáya aphorism, "Pain, birth, activity, faults, false notions,—on the successive annihilation of these in turn, there is the annihilation of the one next before it," by means of this knowledge of the truth. Now false notions are the thinking the body, &c., which are not the soul, to be the soul; "faults" are a desire for those things which seem agreeable to the soul, and a dislike to those things which seem disagreeable to it,[214] though in reality nothing is either agreeable or disagreeable to the soul. And through the mutual reaction of these different "faults" the stupid man desires and the desiring man is stupid; the stupid man is angry, and the angry man is stupid. Moreover the man, impelled by these faults, does those things which are forbidden: thus by the body he does injury, theft, &c.; by the voice, falsehood, &c.; by the mind, malevolence, &c.; and this same sinful "activity" produces demerit. Or, again, he may do laudable actions by [166]his body, as alms, saving others, &c., truthful speaking, upright counsel, &c., by his voice, and guilelessness, &c., by his mind; and this same right activity produces merit. But both are forms of activity, and each leads to a similar laudable or blamable birth or bodily manifestation; and while this birth lasts there arises the impression of "pain," which we are conscious of as of something that jars against us. Now this series, beginning with "false notions" and ending with "pain," is continually going on, and is what we mean by the words "mundane existence," which rolls on ceaselessly, like a waterwheel. And whenever some pre-eminent man, by the force of his previous good deeds, obtains through the teaching of a great teacher the knowledge that all this present life is only a scene of pain and bound up with pain, he recognises that it is all to be avoided, and desires to abolish the ignorance, &c., which are the causes that produced it.[215] Then he learns that the one means to abolish it is the knowledge of the truth; and as he meditates on the objects of right knowledge divided into the four sciences,[216] there arises in his mind the knowledge of the truth, or, in other words, a right view of things as they are; and from this knowledge of the truth false notions disappear. When false notions disappear, the "faults" pass away; with them ceases "activity;" and with it ceases "birth;" and with the cessation of "birth" comes the entire abolition of "pain," and this absolute abolition is final bliss. Its absoluteness consists in this, that nothing similar to that which is thus abolished can ever revive, as is expressly said in the second aphorism of the Nyáya Sútras: "Pain, birth, activity, faults, false notions,—since, on the successive annihilation of these in turn, there is the annihilation of [167]the one next before it, there is [on the annihilation of the last of them] final beatitude."

"But is not your definition of the summum bonum, liberation, i.e., 'the absolute abolition of pain,' after all as much beyond our reach as treacle on the elbow is to the tongue;[217] why then is this continually put forth as if it were established beyond all dispute?" We reply that as all those who maintain liberation in any form do include therein the absolute abolition of pain, our definition, as being thus a tenet accepted in all the schools, may well be called the royal highway[218] of philosophy. No one, in fact, maintains that pain is possible without the individual's activity. Thus even the Mádhyamika's opinion that "liberation consists in the abolition of soul," does not controvert our point, so far at any rate as that it is the abolition of pain. But if you proceed to argue that the soul, as being the cause of pain, is to be abolished just like the body, &c., we reply that this does not hold, since it fails under either alternative. For do you mean by "the soul," (a.) the continued succession of cognitions, or (b.) something different therefrom? (a.) If the former, we make no objection, [since we Naiyáyikas allow that cognition is evanescent,[219] and we do desire to abolish cognition as a cause of pravṛitti or action[220]], for who would oppose a view which makes for his own side? (b.) But if the latter, then, since it must be eternal,[221] its abolition is impossible; and, again, a second objection would be that no one would try to gain your supposed "summum bonum;" for surely no sensible person would strive to annihilate the soul, which is always the dearest of all, on the [168]principle that "everything else is dear for the soul's pleasure;" and, again, everybody uses such a phrase as "liberated," [and this very term refutes the idea of annihilation or abolition].

"But why not say with those Bauddhas who hold the doctrine of pure intelligence [i.e., the Yogácháras and the Sautrántikas[222]], that 'the summum bonum' is the rising of pure intelligence consequent on the cessation of the conscious subject?" To this view we object that there is an absence of means; and also it cannot be established that the locus [or subject] of the two states is the same. For the former, if it is replied that the well-known fourfold set of Bauddha contemplations[223] are to be accepted as the cause, we answer that, as [according to the Bauddha tenet of the momentary existence of all things] there cannot be one abiding subject of these contemplations, they will necessarily exercise a languid power like studies pursued at irregular intervals, and be thus ineffectual to produce any distinct recognition of the real nature of things.

And for the latter, since the continued series of cognitions when accompanied by the natural obstacles[224] is said to be "bound," and when freed from those obstacles is said to be "liberated," you cannot establish an identity of the subject in the two states so as to be able to say that the very same being which was bound is now liberated.

Nor do we find the path of the Jainas, viz., that "Liberation is the releasing from all 'obstructions,'" a path entirely free from bars to impede the wayfarer. Pray, will our Jaina friend kindly inform us what he means by "obstruction"?[225] If he answers "merit, demerit, and error," we readily grant what he says. But if he maintains that "the body is the true obstruction, and hence Liberation is the continual upspringing of the soul consequent on the [169]body's annihilation, as of a parrot released from its cage," then we must inquire whether this said soul possesses form or not. If it possesses form, then has it parts or not? If it has no parts, then, since the well-known definition of an atom will apply here as "that which has form without parts," it will follow that the attributes of the soul are, like those of an atom, imperceptible to the senses.[226] If you say that it has parts, then the general maxim that "whatever has parts is non-eternal," would necessitate that the soul is non-eternal; and if this were conceded, then two grand difficulties [against the Providential course of the world] would burst in unopposed, viz., that what the soul has done would, at its cessation, perish with it [and thus fail of producing the proper fruit], while it would have reaped during life the effects of what it had not done [as the good and evil which happened to it would not be the consequences of its actions in a former birth]. If, on the other hand, the Jaina maintains that the soul does not possess form at all, then how can he talk of the soul's "upspringing," since all such actions as motion necessarily involve an agent possessing form?[227]

Again, if we take the Chárváka's view "that the only bondage is dependence on another, and therefore independence is the true liberation,"—if by "independence" he means the cessation of pain, we have no need to controvert it. But if he means autocratic power, then no sensible man can concede it, as the very idea of earthly power involves the idea of a capability of being increased and of being equalled.[228]

Again, the Sánkhya opinion, which first lays down that nature and soul are utterly distinct, and then holds that [170]"liberation is the soul's remaining as it is in itself after nature [on being known] has withdrawn,"—even this opinion accepts our tenet of the abolition of pain; but there is left a difficulty as to whether this cognition of the distinction between nature and soul resides in the soul or in nature. It is not consistent to say that it resides in the soul, since the soul is held to be unchangeable, and this would seem to involve that previously it had been hampered by ignorance; nor can we say that it resides in nature, since nature is always held to be unintelligent. Moreover, is nature spontaneously active or inactive? If the former, then it follows that there can be no liberation at all, since the spontaneous actions of things cannot be set aside; and if the latter, the course of mundane existence would at once cease to go on.

Again, we have the same recognition of our "abolition of pain" in the doctrine of Bhaṭṭa Sarvajña and his followers, that "Liberation is the manifestation of an eternal happiness incapable of being increased;" but here we have the difficulty that an eternal happiness does not come within the range of definite proof. If you allege Śruti as the proof, we reply that Śruti has no place when the thing itself is precluded by a valid non-perception;[229] or if you allow its authority, then you will have to concede the existence of such things as floating stones.[230]

"But if you give up the view that 'liberation is the manifestation of happiness,' and then accept such a view as that which holds it to be only the cessation of pain, does not your conduct resemble that of the dyspeptic patient who refused sweet milk and preferred sour rice-gruel?" Your satire, however, falls powerless, as fitter for some speech in a play [rather than for a grave philosophical argument]. The truth is that all happiness must [171]be included under the category of pain, since, like honey mixed with poison, it is always accompanied by pain, either as admitting of increase,[231] or as being an object of perception, or as being exposed to many hostile influences, or as involving an irksome necessity of seeking all kinds of instruments for its production. Nor may you retort on us that we have fulfilled the proverb of "seeking one thing and dropping another in the search," since we have abolished happiness as being ever tainted by some incidental pain, and, at the same time, our own favourite alternative is one which no one can consider desirable. For the truth is that any attempt to establish happiness as the summum bonum, since it is inevitably accompanied by various causes of pain, is only like the man who would try to grasp a red-hot ball of iron under the delusion that it was gold. In the case of objects of enjoyment got together by rightful means, we may find many firefly-like pleasures; but then how many are the rainy days to drown them? And in the case of those got together by wrong means, the mind cannot even conceive the future issue which will be brought about. Let our intelligent readers consider all this, and not attempt to disguise their own conscious experience. Therefore it is that we hold it as indisputable that for him, pre-eminent among his fellows, who, through the favour of the Supreme Being, has, by the regular method of listening to the revealed Śruti, &c., attained unto the knowledge of the real nature of the soul, for him the absolute abolition of pain is the true Liberation.

But it may be objected, "Is there any proof at all for the existence of a Supreme Being, i.e., perception, inference, or Śruti? Certainly perception cannot apply here, since the Deity, as devoid of form, &c., must be beyond the senses. Nor can inference hold, since there is no universal proposition or true middle term which can apply.[232] Nor can Śruti, since neither of the resulting [172]alternatives can be sustained; for is it supposed to reveal, as being itself eternal, or as non-eternal? Under the former view an established tenet of our school would be contradicted [viz., that the Veda is non-eternal]; under the latter, we should be only arguing in a circle.[233] As for comparison and any other proof which might be adduced [as that sometimes called presumption, &c.], they need not be thought of for a moment, as their object matter is definitely limited, and cannot apply to the present case.[234] Therefore the Supreme Being seems to be as unreal as a hare's horn." But all this elaborate disputation need excite no flurry in the breast of the intelligent, as it can be at once met by the old argument, "The mountain, seas, &c., must have had a maker from their possessing the nature of effects just like a jar." (a.) Nor can our middle term [possessing the nature of effects] be rejected as unproved (asiddha), since it can be established beyond a doubt by the fact of the subject's possessing parts. "But what are we to understand by this 'possessing parts'? Is it 'existing in contact with parts,' or 'in intimate relation with parts'? It cannot be the first, since this would equally apply to such eternal things as ether,[235] &c.; nor can it be the second, since this would prove too much, as applying to such cases as the [eternal] species, thread, which abides in intimate relation with the individual threads. It therefore fails as a middle term for your argument." We reply, that it holds if we explain the "possessing parts" as "belonging to the class of those substances which exist in intimate relation."[236] Or we may adopt another view and [173]maintain that it is easy to infer the "possessing the nature of effects" from the consideration of their possessing intermediate magnitude.[237]

(b.) Nor can our middle term be rejected as "contradictory" (viruddha),[238] since there is no such acknowledged universal proposition connected with it as would establish the opposite major term to that in our syllogism [i.e., that they must have had no maker]. (c.) Nor is our middle term too general (anaikánta), since it is never found in opposite instances [such as the lake, which is the vipaksha in the argument, "The mountain has fire because it has smoke"]. (d.) Nor again is it precluded (bádhita or kálátyayopadishṭa), for there is no superior evidence to exercise such a precluding power. (e.) Nor is it counter-balanced (sat-pratipakshita), for there does not appear to be any such equally valid antagonist.

If you bring forward as an antagonistic syllogism, "The mountains, &c., cannot have had a maker, from the fact that they were not produced by a body, just as is the case with the eternal ether,"—this pretended inference will no more stand examination than the young fawn can stand the attack of the full-grown lion; for the additional words "by a body" are useless, since "from the fact that they were not produced" would be a sufficient middle term by itself [and the argument thus involves the fallacy called vyápyatvásiddhi].[239] Nor can you retort, "Well, let this then be our middle term;" for you cannot establish it as a real fact. Nor again is it possible to raise the [174]smallest shadow of a fear lest our middle term should be liable to limitation by any suggested condition (upádhi),[240] [such as "the being produced by a corporeal agent," to limit our old reason "from having the nature of effects"], because we have on our side a valid line of argument to establish our view, viz., "If the mountains, &c., had no maker, then they would not be effects" [but all do acknowledge that they have the nature of effects], for in this world that is not an effect which can attain its proper nature independently of any series of concurrent causes. And this series inevitably involves the idea of some sort of maker; and I mean by "being a maker" the being possessed of that combination of volition, desire to act, and knowledge of the proper means, which sets in motion all other causes, but is itself set in motion by none. And hence we hold that if the necessity of a maker were overthrown, the necessity of the action of all the other causes would be simultaneously overthrown, since these are dependent thereon; and this would lead to the monstrous doctrine that effects could be produced without any cause at all. There is a rule laid down by Śaṅkara-kiṅkara which applies directly to the present case—

If you maintain that there are many sound counter-arguments, such as "If the Supreme Being were a maker, He would be possessed of a body," &c., we reply, that all such reasoning is equally inconsistent, whether we allow that Supreme Being's existence to be established or not.[241]

[175]

As has been said by Udayana Áchárya [in the Kusumáñjali, iii. 5]—

Nor need we fear the possibility of any other contradiction to our argument, since it would be overthrown by either alternative of God's being known or unknown.[242]

"Well, let all this be granted; but the activity of God in creating the world, what end did it have in view? His own advantage or some other being's? If it was for the former end, was it in order to attain something desired, or to avoid something not desired? It could not be the first, because this would be quite incongruous in a being who possesses every possible desire gratified; and for the same reason too it could not be the second. If it was for the latter end [the advantage of another] it would be equally incongruous; for who would call that being "wise" who busied himself in acting for another? If you replied that His activity was justified by compassion, any one would at once retort that this feeling of compassion should have rather induced Him to create all living beings happy, and not checkered with misery, since this militates against His compassion; for we define compassion as the disinterested wish to avoid causing another pain. Hence we conclude that it is not befitting for God to create the world." This has been said by Bhaṭṭáchárya—

We reply, O thou crest-jewel of the atheistic school, be [176]pleased for a moment to close thy envy-dimmed eyes, and to consider the following suggestions. His action in creation is indeed solely caused by compassion; but the idea of a creation which shall consist only of happiness is inconsistent with the nature of things, since there cannot but arise eventual differences from the different results which will ripen from the good or evil actions of the beings who are to be created. Nor need you object that this would interfere with God's own independence [as He would thus seem to depend on others' actions], since there is the well-known saying, "One's own body does not hinder one;" nay rather it helps to carry out one's aims;[243] and for this there is authority in such passages of the Veda as that (in the Śvetáśvatara Upanishad, iii. 2), "There is one Rudra only; he admits[244] not of a second," &c. "But then how will you remedy your deadly sickness of reasoning in a circle? [for you have to prove the Veda by the authority of God, and then again you have to prove God's existence by the Veda"]. We reply, that we defy you to point out any reasoning in a circle in our argument. Do you suspect this "reciprocal dependence of each," which you call "reasoning in a circle," in regard to their being produced or in regard to their being known?[245] It cannot be the former, for though the production of the Veda is dependent on God, still as God Himself is eternal, there is no possibility of His being produced; nor can it be in regard to their being known, for even if our knowledge of God were dependent on the Veda, the Veda might be learned from some other source; nor, again, can it be in regard to the knowledge of the non-eternity of the Veda, for the non-eternity of the Veda is easily perceived by [177]any yogin endowed with the transcendent faculties (tívra,[246] &c.)

Therefore, when God has been rendered propitious by the performance of duties which produce His favour, the desired end, Liberation, is obtained; thus everything is clear.

E. B. C.

NOTE ON PAGES 172, 173.

We have here an exemplification of the five fallacies or hetvábhásas of the modern Hindu logic (cf. Siddhántamukt., § 71, Tarkasaṃgr., 55-67), viz., anaikánta, viruddha, asiddha, kálátyayopadishṭa or bádhita, and pratipakshita or sat-pratipaksha. The four first of these generally correspond to the savyabhichára or "erratic," viruddha or "contradictory," sádhyasama or "unproved," and atítakála or "mistimed," i.e., "precluded," as given in the list of fallacies of the older logic in p. 164; but pratipakshita corresponds imperfectly to prakaraṇasama. The prakaraṇasama or "uncertain" reason is properly that reason which is equally available for both sides, as, e.g., the argument, "Sound is eternal because it is audible," which could be met by the equally plausible argument, "Sound is non-eternal because it is audible;" or, according to other authorities, it is that reason which itself raises the same difficulties as the original question, as, e.g., "sound is non-eternal because eternal qualities are not perceived in it;" here this alleged reason is as much the subject of dispute as the old question, "Is sound eternal?" But the pratipakshita reason is one which is counter-balanced by an equally valid reason, as "Sound is eternal because it is audible," and "Sound is non-eternal because it is a product."

[178]

CHAPTER XII.

THE JAIMINI-DARŚANA.

An objector may here ask, "Are you not continually repeating that merit (dharma) comes from the practice of duty (dharma), but how is duty to be defined or proved?" Listen attentively to my answer. A reply to this question has been given in the older[247] Mímáṃsá by the holy sage Jaimini. Now the Mímáṃsá consists of twelve books.[248] In the first book is discussed the authoritativeness of those collections of words which are severally meant by the terms injunction (vidhi), "explanatory passage" (arthaváda), hymn (mantra), tradition (smṛiti), and "name." In the second, certain subsidiary discussions [as e.g., on apúrva] relating to the difference of various rites, refutation of (erroneously alleged) proofs, and difference of performance [as in "constant" and "voluntary" offerings]. In the third, Śruti, "sign" or "sense of the passage" (liṅga), "context" (vákya), &c., and their respective weight when in apparent opposition to one another, the ceremonies called pratipatti-karmáṇi, things mentioned incidentally (anárabhyádhíta), things accessory to several main objects, as prayájas, &c., and the duties of the sacrificer. In the fourth, the influence on other rites of the principal and subordinate rites, the fruit caused by the juhú being made of the butea frondosa, &c., and the dice-playing, &c., which form subordinate parts of the rájasúya sacrifice. In the fifth, the relative order of different [179]passages of Śruti, &c., the order of different parts of a sacrifice [as the seventeen animals at the vájapeya], the multiplication and non-multiplication of rites, and the respective force of the words of Śruti, order of mention, &c., in determining the order of performance. In the sixth, the persons qualified to offer sacrifices, their obligations, the substitutes for enjoined materials, supplies for lost or injured offerings, expiatory rites, the sattra offerings, things proper to be given, and the different sacrificial fires. In the seventh, transference of the ceremonies of one sacrifice to another by direct command in the Vaidic text, and then as inferred by "name" or "sign." In the eighth, transference by virtue of the clearly expressed or obscurely expressed "sign," or by the predominant "sign," and cases where no transference takes place. In the ninth, the beginning of the discussion on the adaptation of hymns when quoted in a new connection (úha), the adaptation of sámans and mantras, and collateral questions connected therewith. In the tenth, the discussion of occasions where the non-performance of the primary rite involves the "preclusion" and non-performance of the dependent rites, and of occasions where rites are precluded because other rites produce their special result, discussions connected with the graha offerings, certain sámans, and various other things, and a discussion on the different kinds of negation. In the eleventh, the incidental mention and subsequently the fuller discussion of tantra[249] [where several acts are combined into one], and ávápa [or the performing an act more than once]. In the twelfth, a discussion on prasaṅga [where the rite is performed for one chief purpose, but with an incidental further reference], tantra, cumulation of concurrent rites (samuchchaya) and option.

Now the first topic which introduces the discussions of [180]the Púrva-Mímáṃsá arises from the aphorism, "Now therefore a desire to know duty [is to be entertained by thee"]. Now the learned describe a "topic" as consisting of five members, and these are (a.) the subject, (b.) the doubt, (c.) the primâ facie argument, (d.) the demonstrated conclusion, and (e.) the connection (saṅgati). The topic is discussed according to the doctrines held by the great teachers of the system. Thus the "subject" to be discussed is the sentence, "The Veda is to be read." Now the "doubt" which arises is whether the study of Jaimini's śástra concerning duty, beginning with the aphorism, "Duty is a thing which is to be recognised by an instigatory passage," and ending with "and from seeing it in the anváhárya," is to be commenced or not. The primâ facie argument is that it is not to be commenced, whether the injunction to read the Veda be held to have a visible and present or an invisible and future fruit. (a.) If you say that this injunction must have a visible fruit, and this can be no other[250] than the knowledge of the meaning of what is read, we must next ask you whether this said reading is enjoined as something which otherwise would not have been thought of, or whether as something which otherwise would have been optional, as we see in the rule for shelling rice.[251] It cannot be the former, for the reading of the Veda is a means of knowing the sense thereof from its very nature as reading, just as in the parallel instance of reading the Mahábhárata; and we see by this argument that it would present itself as an obvious means quite independently of the injunction. Well, then, let it be the latter alternative; just as the baked flour cake called puroḍása is made only of rice prepared by being unhusked in a mortar, when, but for the injunction, it might have been unhusked by the finger-nails. There, however, the new moon and full moon sacrifices only produce their unseen effect, which is [181]the principal apúrva, by means of the various minor effects or subordinate apúrvas, produced by the various subordinate parts of the whole ceremony; and consequently the minor apúrva of the unhusking is the reason there for the restricting injunction. But in the case which we are discussing, there is no such reason for any such restriction, as the rites can be equally well performed by gaining the knowledge of the Veda's meaning by reading a written book, or by studying under an authorised teacher. Hence we conclude that there is no injunction to study the Púrva Mímáṃsá as a means of knowing the sense of the Veda. (b.) "What, then, becomes of the Vedic injunction, 'The Veda is to be read'?" Well, you must be content with the fact that the injunction will have heaven as its [future] fruit, although it merely enjoins the making oneself master of the literal words of the Vedic text [without any care to understand the meaning which they may convey], since heaven, though not expressly mentioned, is to be assumed as the fruit, according to the analogy of the Viśvajit offering. Just as Jaimini, in his aphorism (iv. 3, 15), "Let that fruit be heaven, since it equally applies to all," establishes that those who are not expressly mentioned are still qualified to offer the Viśvajit sacrifice, and infers by argument that its characteristic fruit is heaven, so let us assume it to be in the present case also. As it has been said—

"Since the visible fruit would be equally obtained without the injunction, this cannot be its sole object; we must rather suppose heaven to be the fruit from the injunction's significance, after the analogy of the Viśvajit, &c."

Thus, too, we shall keep the Smṛiti rule from being violated: "Having read the Veda, let him bathe." For this rule clearly implies that no long interval is to take place between reading the Veda and the student's return to his home; while, according to your opinion, after he had read the Veda, he would still have to remain in his preceptor's house to read the Mímáṃsá discussions, and thus the idea of no interval between would be contradicted. Therefore[182] for these three reasons, (a.) that the study of Mímáṃsá is not enjoined, (b.) that heaven can be obtained by the simple reading of the text, and (c.) that the rule for the student's return to his home is thus fulfilled, we maintain that the study of the Mímáṃsá discussions on duty is not to be commenced.

The "authoritative conclusion" (siddhánta), however, is as follows:—

We grant that it cannot be a case of vidhi, for it might have been adopted on other grounds; but not even Indra with his thunderbolt could make us lose our hold of the other alternative that it is a case of niyama. In the sentence, "The Veda is to be read," the affix tavya expresses an enforcing power in the word,[252] which is to be rendered visible by a corresponding action in man, bringing a certain effect into existence; and this enforcing power seeks some corresponding end which is connected with the man's creative effort. Now it cannot be the act itself of reading, as suggested by the whole word adhyetavya, which it thus seeks as an end; for this act of reading, thus expressed by the word, could never be regarded as an end, since it is a laborious operation of the voice and mind, consisting in the articulate utterance of the portion read. Nor could the portion read, as suggested by the whole sentence, be regarded as the end. For the mass of words called "Veda," which is what we really mean by the words "portion read," being eternal and omnipresent, could never fulfil the conditions of the four "fruits of action," production, &c.[253] Therefore the only true end which remains to us is the [183]knowledge of the meaning, as obtained by carrying out the sense of the words of the injunction. According to the old rule, "He has the right who has the want, the power, and the wit," those who are aiming to understand certain things, as the new and full moon sacrifices, use their daily reading to learn the truth about them. And the injunction for reading, since it virtually excludes the reading of written books, &c. [from the well-known technical sense of the word "read" when used in this connection], conveys the idea that the reading the Veda enjoined has a consecrated character [as taught by a duly authorised teacher]. Therefore, as the principal apúrva, produced by the great new and full moon sacrifices, necessitates and establishes the subordinate apúrvas produced by the inferior sacrificial acts, as unhusking the rice, &c., so the mass of apúrva produced by all the sacrifices necessitates and establishes a previous apúrva produced by the restricting injunction (niyama), which prescribes reading the Veda as the means to know how to perform these sacrifices. If you hesitate to concede that a niyama could have this future influence called apúrva, the same doubt might equally invalidate the efficacy of a vidhi [as the two stand on the same level as to their enjoining power]. Nor is the supposition a valid one that heaven is the fruit, according to the analogy of the Viśvajit offering, since, if there is a present and visible fruit in the form of a knowledge of the meaning of the sacred text, it is improper to suppose any other future and unseen fruit. Thus it has been said—

[184]

But an objector may say, "Although a man who reads the simple text of the Veda may not attain to a knowledge of its meaning, still, as he who reads the Veda with its aṅgas, grammar, &c., may attain to this knowledge, the study of Mímáṃsá will be useless." But this is not true: for even though he may attain to a simple knowledge of the literal meaning, all deeper investigation must depend on this kind of discussion. For instance, when it is said, "He offers anointed gravel," neither grammar nor nigama[254] nor nirukta will determine the true meaning that it is to be anointed with ghee and not with oil, &c.; it is only by a Mímáṃsá discussion that the true meaning is unravelled from the rest of the passage, "Verily, ghee is brightness."[255] It is therefore established that the study of Mímáṃsá is enjoined. Nor need it be supposed that this contradicts the passage of Smṛiti, "Having read the Veda, let him bathe," which implies that he should now leave his teacher's house, and prohibits any further delay; as the words do not necessarily imply that the return to the paternal roof is to follow immediately on his having read the Veda, but only that it is to follow it at some time, and that both actions are to be done by the same person, just as we see in the common phrase, "Having bathed, he eats." Therefore from the purport of the injunction we conclude that the study of the Púrva Mímáṃsá Śástra, consisting of a thousand "topics,"[256] is to be commenced. This topic is connected with the main subject of the Śástra as being a subsidiary digression, as it is said, "They call that a subsidiary digression which helps to establish the main subject."[257]

I now proceed to give a sketch of the discussion of the same "topic" in accordance with the teaching of the Guru Prabhákara.

In the Smṛiti rule,[258] "Let him admit as a pupil the Brahman lad when eight years old (by investing him with [185]the sacred cord), let him instruct him," the object of the direction appears to be the pupil's instruction. Now a direction must have reference to somebody to be directed; and if you ask who is here to be directed, I reply, "He who desires to be a teacher," since, by Páṇini's rule (i. 3, 36), the root ní is used in the átmanepada when honour, &c., are implied, i.e., here the duty which a teacher performs to his pupils. He who is to be directed as to admitting a pupil is the same person who is to be directed as to teaching him, since both are the object of one and the same command. Hence the inspired sage Manu has said (ii. 140), "The Bráhman who girds his pupil with the sacrificial cord and then instructs him in the Veda, with its subsidiary aṅgas and mystic doctrines, they call a spiritual teacher (áchárya)." Now the teaching which is the function of the teacher cannot be fulfilled without the learning which is the function of the pupil, and therefore the very injunction to teach implies and establishes a corresponding obligation to learn, since the influencer's efforts fail without those of one to be influenced. If you object that this view does not make reading the Veda the object of definite injunction, I reply, What matters it to us if it is not? For even if there is no reason for us to admit a separate injunction for reading the Veda, it will still remain perpetually enjoined as a duty, because the passage which mentions it is a perpetual anuváda or "supplementary repetition."[259] Therefore the former primâ facie argument and its answer, which were given before under the idea that there was a definite injunction to read the Veda, must now be discussed in another way to suit this new view.

Now the primâ facie argument was that the study of Mímáṃsá, not being authoritatively enjoined, is not to be commenced; the "conclusion" was that it is to be commenced as being thus authoritatively enjoined.[186]

Now the upholders of the former or primâ facie view argue as follows:—"We put to the advocates of the conclusion the following dilemma: Does the injunction to teach imply that the pupil is to understand the meaning of what is read, or does it only refer to the bare reading? It cannot be the former, for obviously the act of teaching cannot depend for its fulfilment on the pupil's understanding what is taught [as this will depend on his ability as a recipient]; and the latter will not help you, as, if the bare reading is sufficient, the Mímáṃsá discussions in question will have no subject or use. For their proper subject is a point in the Veda, which is doubted about from having been only looked at in a rough and impromptu way; now if there is no need of understanding the meaning at all, why should we talk of doubts and still more of any hope of ascertaining the true meaning by means of laborious discussion? And therefore in accordance with the well-known principle, 'That which is a thing of use and not a matter of doubt is an object of attainment to an intelligent man, as, for instance, a jar which is in broad light and in contact with the external and internal senses,' as there is in the present case no such thing as a subject to exercise it upon, or a useful end to be attained by it, we maintain that the study of Mímáṃsá is not to be commenced."

We grant, in reply, that the injunction to teach does not imply a corresponding necessity that the student must understand the meaning; still when a man has read the Veda with its subsidiary aṅgas, and has comprehended the general connection of the words with their respective meanings, this will imply an understanding of the meaning of the Veda, just as it would in any ordinary human compositions. "But may we not say that, just as in the case of the mother who said to her son, 'Eat poison,' the meaning literally expressed by the words was not what she wished to convey, since she really intended to forbid his eating anything at all in such and such a house; so if the literal meaning of the Veda does not express its[187] real purport, the old objection will recur with full force that the study of Mímáṃsá will have neither subject nor end [as there will be no use in understanding the literal meaning, since, as in the mother's case, it may only lead astray, and so common sense must be the ultimate judge"]. We reply, that your supposed illustration and the case in question are not really parallel. In the supposed illustration the primary meaning of the words would be obviously precluded, because a direction to eat poison would be inconceivable in the mouth of an authoritative and trustworthy speaker like a mother, and you would know at once that this could not be what she wished to say; but in the case of the Veda, which is underived from any personal author, why should not the literal meaning be the one actually intended? And it is just the doubts that arise, as they occasionally will do, in reference to this intended meaning, which will be the proper "subject" of Mímáṃsá discussion; and the settlement of these doubts will be its proper "end." Therefore, whenever the true meaning of the Veda is not obtained[260] by that reading which is virtually prescribed by the authoritative injunction to a Brahman to teach, it will be a proper subject for systematic discussion; and hence we hold that the study of Mímáṃsá is enjoined, and should be commenced.

"Well,[261] be it so" [say the followers of the Nyáya], "but how can the Vedas be said to be underived from any personal author, when there is no evidence to establish this? Would you maintain that they have no personal author because, although there is an unbroken line of tradition, there is no remembrance of any author, just as is the case with the soul"?[262] This argument is weak, because the alleged characteristics [unbroken tradition, &c.] are not proved; for those who hold the human origin of the Vedas maintain [188]that the line of tradition was interrupted at the time of the dissolution of the universe. And, again, what is meant by this assertion that the author is not remembered? Is it (1.) that no author is believed, or (2.) that no author is remembered? The first alternative cannot be accepted, since we hold that God is proved to have been the author. Nor can the second, because it cannot stand the test of the following dilemma, viz., is it meant (a.) that no author of the Veda is remembered by some one person, or (b.) by any person whatever? The former supposition breaks down, as it would prove too much, since it would apply to such an isolated stanza as "He who is religious and has overcome pride and anger," &c.[263] And the latter supposition is inadmissible, since it would be impossible for any person who was not omniscient to know that no author of the Veda was recollected by any person whatever. Moreover, there is actual proof that the Veda had a personal author, for we argue as follows:—The sentences of the Veda must have originated from a personal author, since they have the character of sentences like those of Kálidása and other writers. And, again, the sentences of the Veda have been composed by a competent person, since, while they possess authority, they have, at the same time, the character of sentences, like those of Manu and other sages.

But [ask the Mímáṃsakas] may it not be assumed that "all study of the Veda was preceded by an earlier study of it by the pupil's preceptor, since the study of the Veda must always have had one common character which was the same in former times as now;" and therefore this uninterrupted succession has force to prove the eternity of the Veda? This reasoning, however [the Naiyáyikas [189]answer], cannot rise to the height of proof, for it has no more validity than such obviously illusory reasoning, as "All study of the Mahábhárata was preceded by an earlier study of it by the pupil's preceptor, since it is the study of the Mahábhárata, which must have been the same in former times as now." But [the Mímáṃsakas will ask whether there is not a difference between these two cases, since] the Smṛiti declares that [Vishṇu incarnate as] Vyása was the author of the Mahábhárata, in accordance with the line, "Who else than the lotus-eyed Vishṇu could be the maker of the Mahábhárata?" [while nothing of this sort is recorded in any Smṛiti in regard to the Veda]. This argument, however, is pithless, since those words of the Purushasúkta (Rig V., x. 90), "From him sprang the Ṛich and Sáman verses; from him sprang the Metres; from him the Yajus arose;" prove that the Veda had a maker.

Further [proceed the Naiyáyikas] we hold that sound is non-eternal[264] because it has genus, and is also perceptible to the external organs of beings such as ourselves, just as a jar is.[265] "But," you may object, "is not this argument refuted by the proof arising from the fact that we recognise the letter g (for example) as the same we have heard before?" This objection, however, is extremely weak, for the recognition in question is powerless to refute our argument, since it has reference only to identity of species, as in the case of a man whose hair has been cut and has grown again, or of a jasmine which has blossomed afresh. "But [asks the Mímáṃsaka] how can the Veda have been uttered by the incorporeal Parameśvara, who has no palate or other organs of speech, and therefore cannot have pronounced the letters?" "This objection [190][answers the Naiyáyika] is not happy, because, though Parameśvara is by nature incorporeal, he can yet assume a body in sport, in order to show kindness to his worshippers. Consequently the arguments in favour of the doctrine that the Veda had no personal author are inconclusive."

I shall now [says the Mímáṃsaka] clear up the whole question. What is meant by this paurusheyatva ["derivation from a personal author"] which it is sought to prove? Is it (1.) mere procession (utpannatva) from a person, like the procession of the Veda from persons such as ourselves, when we daily utter it? or (2.) is it the arrangement—with a view to its manifestation—of knowledge acquired by other modes of proof, as in the case of treatises composed by persons like ourselves? If the first meaning be intended, there will be no dispute between us.[266] If the second sense be meant, I ask whether it is established (a.) by inference,[267] or (b.) by supernatural testimony? (a.) The former alternative cannot be correct, because your argument would equally apply to the sentences in dramas such as the Málatímádhava [which, of course, being a work of fiction, has no authoritative character]. If you qualify your argument by inserting the saving clause, "while they possess authority,"[268] [as supra, p. 188, line 21], even this explanation will fail to satisfy a philosopher. For the sentences of the Veda are universally defined to be sentences which prove things that are not provable by other evidence. But if you could establish that these Vedic sentences only prove what is provable by other evidence, this definition would be at once [191]contradicted, just as if a man were to say that his mother was a barren woman. And even if we granted that Parameśvara might assume a body in sport, in order to show kindness to his worshippers, it would not at all follow that he would perceive things beyond the reach of the senses, from the want of any means of apprehending objects removed from him in place, in time, and in nature.[269] Nor is it to be assumed that his eyes and other senses alone would have the power of producing such knowledge, for we can only draw upon our imagination in accordance with our past experience. This has been declared by the Guru [Prabhákara] when he refutes the supposition of an omniscient author—

Hence (b.) we also maintain that your position cannot be established by any supposed supernatural testimony [as that quoted above from the Rig-Veda, "from him sprang the Ṛich and Sáman verses"]. For the rule of Páṇini (iv. 3, 101) will still remain inviolate, that the grammatical affixes with which such names as Káṭhaka, Kálápa, and Taittiríya are formed, impart to those derivatives the sense of "uttered by" Kaṭha, Kalápin, &c., though we maintain that these names have reference [not to those parts of the Veda as first composed by these sages, but] to the fact that these sages instituted certain schools of traditional study. And in the same way we hold [in reference to this verse from the Rig-Veda] that it only refers to the institution of certain schools of traditional study of these Vedas.

Nor will any supposed inference establish the non-eternity [192]of sound, because [as we said before] it is opposed to the evidence of our consciousness, [since we certainly recognise the letter now heard as the one heard before]. Nor is it reasonable to reply that, although the letters are not the same, they seem to be so on account of their identity of species. For here we ask our opponents a question—Is this idea that "the apparent sameness arises from identity of species" put forward from a wish to preclude entirely any idea of the letters being the same, or only [from an imagined fear of error] because experience shows that the recognition will sometimes be erroneous [as in the cases of the hair and jasmine mentioned above]? (a.) If it arises from the latter reason, we Mímáṃsakas, who hold that the Veda is its own evidence, have said in reference to this timid imagination—

(b.) "But [the Naiyáyikas will ask] does not this recognition of g and other letters [as the same which we heard before] refer to the species which exists the same in each, and not to the several individual letters, since, in fact, we perceive that they are different as uttered by different persons, otherwise we could not make such distinctions as we do when we say 'Somaśarman is reading'?" This objection, however, has as little brilliancy as its predecessors, for as there is no proof of any distinction between the individual g's, there is no proof that we ought to assume any such thing as a species g; and we maintain that, just as to the man who does not understand [the Naiyáyika doctrine of] the species g, the one species [in the Naiyáyika view] will by the influence of distinction of place, magnitude, form, and individual sounds, appear as if it were variously modified as itself distinct in place, as small, as great, as long, as short; so to the man who does not understand our [Mímáṃsaka doctrine of] one individual[193] g, the one g (in our view) will by the diversity of "manifesters,"[271] appear to him associated with their respective peculiarities; and as contrary characters are in this way ascribed [to the letter g], there is a fallacious appearance of distinction [between different g's]. But does this ascription of contrary characters, which is thus regarded as creating a difference [between the g's], result (1.) from the nature of the thing, or (2.) from our imagination? There is no proof of the former alternative; for, if it were true, as an inherent difference would have to be admitted between different g's, we should have to say, "Chaitra has uttered ten g's," and not "Chaitra has uttered the same g ten times." On the latter supposition, there is no proof of any inherent distinction between g's, for inherent oneness is not destroyed by a difference of external disguises. Thus we must not conceive, from the apparent distinction caused by such external disguises as jars, &c., that there is any inherent distinction, as of parts, in the one indivisible ether. The current use of the rejected phrase [i.e., "different" as applied to the g's] is really caused by the noise, which in each case is different. This has been said by the great teacher—

And again—

This at once refutes the argument given in the [Naiyáyika] [194]treatise by Vágíśwara, entitled Mána-manohara, "sound is non-eternal from the fact of its being a special quality belonging to an organ of sense[273] (sc. the ear), just as colour is to the eye."

We can also refute it in the following ways: (a.) If we follow the [Sáṅkhya and Vedánta] view that sound is a substance, it is evidently overthrown[274] [as in that case sound cannot be a quality]; (b.) if we take it as referring to the noise, not the sound, we have no dispute, as it only establishes what we ourselves allow; and (c.) the inference is overthrown by the "limiting condition" [upádhi] of aśrávaṇatva, or "the not causing audition."[275] So Udayana tries at great length to establish that, although ether, the site of sound, is imperceptible, the non-existence of that which abides in this site is perceptible; and he then brings forward as an evidence for the non-eternity of sound, that sense perception which causes the use of such common expressions as "The tumult is stopped," "The sound has arisen."[276] But he is sufficiently answered[277] by our old reply [in p. 193], that the fallacious appearance of [195]distinction arises from contrary characters being erroneously ascribed, just as, in the story, the demon Tála went away [as well as Betála] when the offering of blood was given to the latter.[278] And as for the objection raised by the author of the Nyáyabhúshaṇa,[279] that, if sound were eternal, the conclusion must follow that it would be either always perceptible or always imperceptible, this also is obviated by our allowing that we only perceive that sound which is manifested by our articulate noise.[280] And as for the (Naiyáyika) argument against the existence[281] of such a constant relation as this which is supposed between the manifested "sound" and the manifesting "noise," since they both come simultaneously in contact with the sense of hearing, this is invalid, as it will indisputably apply with equal force in the case of the soul.[282]

Therefore as the Veda is thus proved to have not originated from any personal author, and as the minutest germ of suspicion against it is thus absolutely destroyed, we hold it as satisfactorily demonstrated that it has a self-established authority in all matters relating to duty.

"Well"[283] [say our opponents], "let this question rest; [196]but how about another well-known controversy? It is said—

"'The Sáṅkhyas hold that both authoritativeness and non-authoritativeness are self-proved; the followers of the Nyáya hold that both are proved by something else [as inference, &c.]; the Buddhists hold that the latter is self-proved and the former proved by something else; the teachers of the Veda maintain that authoritativeness is self-proved and non-authoritativeness proved by something else.' Now we ask, amidst all this discussion, how do the Mímáṃsakas accept as established their tenet that the authoritativeness of duty is self-proved? And what is the meaning of this so-called self-proved authoritativeness? Is it (a.) that authoritativeness springs from itself? or (b.) that it springs from the right knowledge in which it resides? or (c.) that it springs from the instrumental causes [as the eye, &c.] which produced the right knowledge in which it resides? or (d.) that it resides in a particular knowledge produced by the instrumental causes which produced the right knowledge?[284] or (e.) that it resides in a particular knowledge produced by the instrumental causes only which produced the right knowledge?

"(a.) It cannot be the first, because wherever the relation of cause and effect is found there must be a difference, and therefore these two cannot reside in the same subject [i.e., authoritativeness cannot cause itself]. (b.) It cannot be the second, because if knowledge, which is a quality, were the cause of authoritativeness, it would have to be a substance, as being an intimate cause.[285] (c.) It cannot be the third, because 'authoritativeness' cannot properly be [197]'produced' at all,[286] whether we call it a general characteristic (upádhi) or a species (játi);[287] for if we call it an upádhi, it is defined as the absolute non-existence of any contradiction to a certain kind of knowledge which does not possess the nature of recollection;[288] and this cannot be produced, for we all allow that absolute non-existence is eternal; and still less can we speak of its being produced, if we regard it as a species. (d.) Nor can it be the fourth, for wrong knowledge [as well as right knowledge] is a particular kind of knowledge, and the instrumental causes which produce the general are included in those which produce the particular,[289] just as the general idea 'seed,' as applied to 'tree,' is included in the particular seed of any special tree, as, e.g., the Dalbergia Sisu; otherwise we might suppose that the particular had no instrumental cause at all. Your definition would therefore extend too far [and include erroneous as well as true knowledge]; for non-authoritativeness, which Vedantists and most Mímáṃsakas allow to be produced by something external, must also be considered as residing in a particular knowledge [i.e., a wrong knowledge] produced [in part] by the instrumental causes which produced the right knowledge. (e.) As for your fifth view, we ask whether by being produced by the instrumental causes only which produced right knowledge, you mean to include or exclude the absence of a 'defect'? It cannot be the former alternative; because the followers of the Nyáya who hold that authoritativeness is proved by something external [as inference, &c.], would at once grant that authoritativeness is produced by the instrumental causes of knowledge combined with the absence of a 'defect.' [198]Neither can it be the latter alternative; for, inasmuch as it is certain that the absence of a 'defect' is found combined with the various instrumental causes, this absence of a 'defect' is fixed as by adamantine glue to be a cause of right knowledge, since right knowledge will always accompany its presence, and be absent if it is absent,[290] and it will at the same time be not an unimportant condition.[291] If you object that non-existence (or absence) cannot be a cause, we reply by asking you whether non-existence can be an effect or not? If it cannot, then we should have to allow that cloth is eternal, as its "emergent non-existence" or destruction would be impossible. If it can be an effect, then why should it not be a cause also? So this rope binds you at both ends. This has also been said by Udayana [in his Kusumáñjali, i. 10]—

"The argument, in my opinion, runs as follows:—Right knowledge depends on some cause[292] other than the common causes of knowledge, from the very fact that, while it is an effect, it is also knowledge, just as wrong knowledge does.[293] Authoritativeness is known through something external to itself [e.g., inference], because doubt arises in regard to it in an unfamiliar case, as we also see in non-authoritativeness.

"Therefore, as we can prove that authoritativeness is both produced and recognised by means of something external, the Mímáṃsá tenet that 'authoritativeness is self-proved' is like a gourd overripe and rotten."

This long harangue of our opponent, however, is but a vain attempt to strike the sky with his fist; for (a.) we mean by our phrase "self-proved" that while right knowledge is produced by the instrumental causes of [199]knowledge, it is not produced by any other cause (as "defect," &c.) The following is our argument as drawn out in full:—Right knowledge is not produced by any other instrumental causes than those of knowledge, while, at the same time, it is produced by these, because it is not the site of wrongness of knowledge,—just like a jar.[294] Nor can Udayana's[295] argument be brought forward as establishing the dependence of authoritativeness on something external, for it is swallowed up by the dragon of the equally potent contradictory argument. "Right knowledge is not produced by any cause which is other than the causes of knowledge and is also other than 'defect,'[296] from the very fact of its being knowledge—like wrong knowledge." Again, since right knowledge can arise from the causes of knowledge per se, it would be a needless complexity to suppose that anything else is a cause, whether you call it a guṇa or the absence of a "defect" (dosha).[297]

"But surely if the presence of a defect is the cause of wrong knowledge, it is difficult to deny that its absence must be a cause of right knowledge?" We meet this, however, by maintaining that the absence of defect is only an indirect and remote cause, as it only acts negatively by preventing wrong knowledge. As it has been said—

[200]

(b.) We maintain that the recognition of right knowledge is produced by the same causes only which make us perceive the first knowledge[301] [sc. the eye, mind, &c.] Nor can you object that this view is precluded, because it would imply that there could be no such thing as doubt; for we answer that doubt arises in cases where, although all the causes which produce knowledge are present, there is also the simultaneous presence of some opposing cause, as a "defect," &c.

As for your argument [O Naiyáyika! given supra, in p. 198, lines 17-24], I ask, Is your own argument an authoritative proof by itself or not? If it is, it proves too much [for it would properly apply to itself and lead us to infer its own dependence on external proof, whereas you hold it to be independent of such]; and if it is not, we should have a case of regressus in infinitum, for it will want some other proof to confirm its authoritativeness, and this too in its turn will want some fresh proof, and so on for ever.

As for the argument urged by Udayana[302] in the Kusumáñjali, when he tries to establish that immediate and vehement action does not depend on the agent's certainty as to the authoritativeness of the speech which sets him acting: "Action depends on wish, its vehemence on that [201]of the wish,[303] wish on the knowledge that the thing wished for is a means to attain some wished-for end, and this is only ascertained by an inference based on some 'sign' which proves that the thing is closely connected with the wished-for end, and this inference depends on the things being in direct contact with the agent's senses; but throughout the whole series of antecedent steps the Mímáṃsá idea of the perception of authoritativeness is never once found as a cause of action." All this appears to us simple bluster, like that of the thief who ostentatiously throws open all his limbs before me, when I had actually found the gold under his armpit. It is only the knowledge that the thing is a means to attain the desired end, and this knowledge recognised as authoritative and right knowledge, which causes the definite volition to arise at all; and in this we can distinctly trace the influence of that very perception of authoritativeness [whose existence he so vehemently pretended to deny]. If unhesitating action ever arose in any case from doubt, then, as it might always arise so in every given case, all ascertainment of authoritativeness would be useless; and as the very existence of what is unascertained is rendered uncertain, poor authoritativeness would have to be considered as dead and buried! But enough of this prolix controversy; since it has been said—

Now with regard to the Veda, which is the self-proved and authoritative criterion in regard to duty, [we have the following divergency between the two great Mímáṃsá [202]schools]:—The Veda is composed of three portions, respectively called "hymns" (mantra), "explanatory passages" (arthaváda), and "injunctions" (vidhi); and by "injunction" we mean such sentences as "Let him who desires heaven sacrifice with the jyotishṭoma." Here ta, the affix of the third person singular, denotes an enjoining power, which is "coloured" [or rendered definite] by the meaning of the root, according to the opinion of the followers of Bhaṭṭa Kumárila, who maintain that words signify[305] something definite by themselves [apart from the sentence]. The followers of Guru Prabhákara, on the contrary, hold that the whole sentence is a command relating to the sacrifice, as they maintain that words only signify an action or something to be done.[306] Thus all has been made plain.

E. B. C.

[203]

CHAPTER XIII.

THE PÁṆINI-DARŚANA.[307]

If any one asks, "Where are we to learn how to separate a root and an affix so as to be able to say, 'This part is the original root and this is an affix,'" may we not reply that to those who have drunk the waters of Patañjali this question produces no confusion, since it is notorious that the rules of grammar have reference to this very point of the separation of the original roots and affixes? Thus the very first sentence of the venerable Patañjali, the author of the "Great Commentary," is "atha śabdánuśásanam," "Now comes the exposition of words." The particle atha ("now") is used here as implying a new topic or a commencement; and by the phrase, "exposition of words," is meant the system of grammar put forth by Páṇini. Now a doubt might here arise as to whether this phrase implies that the exposition of words is to be the main topic or not; and it is to obviate any such doubt that he employed the particle atha, since this particle implies that what follows is to be treated as the main topic to the exclusion of everything else.

The word "exposition" (anuśásana), as here used, implies that thereby Vaidic words, such as those in the line śaṃ no devír abhishṭaye,[308] &c., and secular words as ancillary to these, as the common words for "cow," "horse," "man," [204]"elephant," "bird," &c., are made the subject of the exposition, i.e., are deduced from their original roots and properly formed, or, in other words, are explained as divided into root and affix. We must consider that the compound in this phrase represents a genitive of the object [śabdánuśásanam standing for śabdasyánuśásanam], and as there is a rule of Páṇini (karmaṇi cha, ii. 2, 14), which prohibits composition in such a construction, we are forced to concede that the phrase śabdánuśásanam does not come before us as a duly authorised compound.

Here, however, arises a discussion [as to the true application of the alleged rule of Páṇini], for we hold that, by ii. 3, 66, wherever an object and an agent are both expressed in one and the same sentence in connection with a word ending with a kṛit affix, there the object alone can be put in the genitive and not the agent;[309] this limitation arising from our taking ubhayaprápti in the sútra as a bahuvríhi compound.[310] Thus we must say, "Wonderful is the milking of cows by an unpractised cowherd." We may, however, remark in passing that some authors do maintain that the agent may in such cases be put in the genitive (as well as the object); hence we find it stated in the Káśiká Commentary: "Some authors maintain that there should be an option in such cases without any distinction, and thus they would equally allow such a construction as 'the exposition of words of the teacher' or 'by the teacher.'" Inasmuch, however, as the words of the phrase in question really mean that the "exposition" intended relates to words and not to things, and since this can be at once understood without any mention of the [205]agent, i.e., the teacher, any such mention would be plainly superfluous; and therefore as the object and the agent are not both expressed in one and the same sentence, this is not an instance of the genitive of the object (coming under ii. 3, 66, and ii. 2, 14), but rather an instance of quite another rule, viz., ii. 3, 65, which directs that an agent or an object, in connection with a word ending with a kṛit affix, is to be put in the genitive [which in this instance is expressed by the tatpurusha compound]; and the compound in question will be strictly analogous to such recognised forms as idhma-pravraśchana, paláśa-śátana, &c.[311] Or we might argue that the genitive case implied in this shashṭhítatpurusha is one of the class called "residual," in accordance with Páṇini's rule (ii. 3, 50), "Let the genitive be used in the residuum," [i.e., in the other constructions not provided for by special rules];[312] and in this way we might defend the phrase against the opponent's attack. "But," it might be replied, "your alleged 'residual genitive' could be assumed everywhere, and we should thus find all the prohibitions of composition in constructions with a genitive case rendered utterly nugatory." This we readily grant, and hence Bhartṛihari in his Vákyapadíya has shown that these rules are mainly useful where the question relates to the accent.[313] To this effect are the words of the great doctor Vardhamána—

[206]

Hence it follows that the full meaning of the sentence in question (of the Mahábháshya) is that "it is to be understood that the rules of grammar which may be taken as a synonym for 'the exposition concerning words' are now commenced."

"Well, then, for the sake of directly understanding this intended meaning, it would have been better to have said 'now comes grammar,' as the words 'now comes the exposition of words' involve a useless excess of letters." This objection cannot, however, be allowed, since the employment of such a word as śabdánuśásanam, the sense of which can be so readily inferred from its etymology, proves that the author intends to imply an end which shall establish that grammar is a subordinate study (aṅga) to the Veda.[315] Otherwise, if there were no such end set forth, there would be no consequent application of the readers to the study of grammar. Nor may you say that this application will be sufficiently enforced by the injunction for study, "the Veda with its six subordinate parts must be read as a duty without any (special) end,"[316] because, even though there be such an injunction, it will not follow that students will apply to this study, if no end is mentioned which will establish that it is an aṅga of the Veda. Thus in old times the students, after reading the Veda, used to be in haste to say—

Therefore it was only when they understood it to be an aṅga of the Veda that they applied themselves to its study. So in the same way the students of the present day would not be likely to apply themselves to it either. It is to obviate this danger that it becomes necessary to set forth some end which shall, at the same time, establish [207]that grammar is an aṅga of the Veda. If, when the end is explained, they should still not apply themselves, then, being destitute of all knowledge of the true formation of secular words, they would become involved in sin in the course of sacrificial acts, and would consequently lose their religious merit. Hence the followers of sacrifice read, "One who keeps up a sacrificial fire, on using an incorrect word, should offer an expiatory offering to Saraswatí." Now it is to declare this end which establishes that it is an aṅga of the Veda that he uses the words atha śabdánuśásanam and not atha vyákaraṇam. Now the rules of grammar must have an end, and a thing's end is determined by men's pursuit of it with a view thereto. Just as in a sacrifice undertaken with a view to heaven, heaven is the end; in the same way the end of the exposition of words is instruction concerning words, i.e., propriety of speech. "But," an objector may say, "will not the desired end be still unattained for want of the true means to it? Nor can it be said that reading the Veda word by word is the true means; for this cannot be a means for the understanding of words, since their number is infinite, as divided into proper and improper words.[317] Thus there is a tradition that Bṛihaspati for a thousand divine years taught to Indra the study of words as used in their individual forms when the Veda is read word by word,[318] and still he came not to the end. Here the teacher was Bṛihaspati, the pupil was Indra, and the time of study a thousand years of the gods; and yet the termination was not reached,—how much less, then, in our day, let a man live ever so long? Learning is rendered efficient by four appropriate means,—reading, understanding, practising, and handing it on to others; but in the proposed way life would only suffice for the bare time of reading; therefore the reading word by word is not a means for the knowledge of words, and consequently, [208]as we said at first, the desired end is not established." We reply, however, that it was never conceded that the knowledge of words was to be attained by this reading word by word. And again, since general and special rules apply at once to many examples, when these are divided into the artificial parts called roots, &c. (just as one cloud rains over many spots of ground), in this way we can easily comprehend an exposition of many words. Thus, for instance, by the general rule (iii. 2, 1), karmaṇi, the affix aṇ is enjoined after a root when the object is in composition with it; and by this rule we learn many words, as kumbhakára, "a potter," káṇḍaláva, "a cutter of stems," &c. But the supplementary special rule (iii. 2, 3), áto 'nupasarge kaḥ, directing that the affix ka is to be used after a root that ends in long á when there is no upasarga, shows how impracticable this reading word by word would be [since it would never teach us how to distinguish an upasarga]. "But since there are other aṅgas, why do you single out grammar as the one object of honour?" We reply, that among the six aṅgas the principal one is grammar, and labour devoted to what is the principal is sure to bear fruit. Thus it has been said—

Hence we conclude that the exposition of words is the direct end of the rules of grammar, but its indirect end is the preservation, &c., of the Veda. Hence it has been said by the worshipful author of the great Commentary [quoting a Várttika], "the end (or motive) is preservation, inference, scripture, facility, and assurance."[319] Moreover prosperity arises from the employment of a correct word; thus Kátyáyana has said, "There is prosperity in the employment of a word according to the śástra; it is equal to the words of the Veda itself." Others also have said [209]that "a single word thoroughly understood and rightly used becomes in Swarga the desire-milking cow." Thus (they say)—

Nor need you ask "how can an irrational word possess such power?" since we have revelation declaring that it is like to the great god. For the Śruti says, "Four are its horns, three its feet, two its heads, and seven its hands,—roars loudly the threefold-bound bull, the great god enters mortals" (Rig-Veda, iv. 58, 3). The great commentator thus explains it:—The "four horns" are the four kinds of words—nouns, verbs, prepositions, and particles; its "three feet" mean the three times, past, present, and future, expressed by the tense-affixes, laṭ, &c.; the "two heads," the eternal and temporary (or produced) words, distinguished as the "manifested" and the "manifester;" its "seven hands" are the seven case affixes, including the conjugational terminations; "threefold bound," as enclosed in the three organs—the chest, the throat, and the head. The metaphor "bull" (vṛishabha) is applied from its pouring forth (varshaṇa), i.e., from its giving fruit when used with knowledge. "Loudly roars," i.e., utters sound, for the root ru means "sound;" here by the word "sound" developed speech (or language)[321] is implied; "the great god enters mortals,"—the "great god," i.e., speech,—enters mortals, i.e., men endowed with the attribute of mortality. Thus is declared the likeness [of speech][322] to the supreme Brahman.

The eternal word, called sphoṭa, without parts, and the cause of the world, is verily Brahman; thus it has been [210]declared by Bhartṛihari in the part of his book called the Brahmakáṇḍa—

"But since there is a well-known twofold division of words into nouns and verbs, how comes this fourfold division?" We reply, because this, too, is well known. Thus it has been said in the Prakírṇaka—

Helárája interprets the fivefold division as including karmapravachaníyas.[323] But the fourfold division, mentioned by the great commentator, is proper, since karmapravachaníyas distinguish a connection produced by a particular kind of verb, and thus, as marking out a particular kind of connection and so marking out a particular kind of verb, they are really included in compounded prepositions (upasargas).[324]

"But," say some, "why do you talk so much of an eternal sound called sphoṭa? This we do not concede, since there is no proof that there is such a thing." We reply that our own perception is the proof. Thus there is one word "cow," since all men have the cognition of a word distinct from the various letters composing it. You cannot say, in the absence of any manifest contradiction, that this perception of the word is a false perception.

[211]

Hence you must concede that there is such a thing as sphoṭa, as otherwise you cannot account for the cognition of the meaning of the word. For the answer that its cognition arises from the letters cannot bear examination, since it breaks down before either horn of the following dilemma:—Are the letters supposed to produce this cognition of the meaning in their united or their individual capacity? Not the first, for the letters singly exist only for a moment, and therefore cannot form a united whole at all; and not the second, since the single letters have no power to produce the cognition of the meaning [which the word is to convey]. There is no conceivable alternative other than their single or united capacity; and therefore it follows (say the wise in these matters) that, as the letters cannot cause the cognition of the meaning, there must be a sphoṭa by means of which arises the knowledge of the meaning; and this sphoṭa is an eternal sound, distinct from the letters and revealed by them, which causes the cognition of the meaning. "It is disclosed (sphuṭyate) or revealed by the letters," hence it is called sphoṭa, as revealed by the letters; or "from it is disclosed the meaning," hence it is called sphoṭa as causing the knowledge of the meaning,—these are the two etymologies to explain the meaning of the word. And thus it hath been said by the worshipful Patañjali in the great Commentary, "Now what is the word 'cow' gauḥ? It is that word by which, when pronounced, there is produced the simultaneous cognition of dewlap, tail, hump, hoofs, and horns." This is expounded by Kaiyaṭa in the passage commencing, "Grammarians maintain that it is the word, as distinct from the letters, which expresses the meaning, since, if the letters expressed it, there would be no use in pronouncing the second and following ones [as the first would have already conveyed all we wished]," and ending, "The Vákyapadíya has established at length that it is the sphoṭa which, distinct from the letters and revealed by the sound, expresses the meaning."[325]

[212]

Here, however, an objector may urge, "But should we not rather say that the sphoṭa has no power to convey the meaning, as it fails under either of the following alternatives, for is it supposed to convey the meaning when itself manifested or unmanifested? Not the latter, because it would then follow that we should find the effect of conveying the meaning always produced, since, as sphoṭa is supposed to be eternal, and there would thus be an ever-present cause independent of all subsidiary aids, the effect could not possibly fail to appear. Therefore, to avoid this fault, we must allow the other alternative, viz., that sphoṭa conveys the meaning when it is itself manifested. Well, then, do the manifesting letters exercise this manifesting power separately or combined? Whichever alternative you adopt, the very same faults which you alleged against the hypothesis of the letters expressing the meaning, will have to be met in your hypothesis that they have this power to manifest sphoṭa." This has been said by Bhaṭṭa in his Mímáṃsá-śloka-várttika—

[213]

The truth is, that, as Páṇini (i. 4, 14) and Gotama (Sút. ii. 123) both lay it down that letters only then form a word when they have an affix at the end, it is the letters which convey the word's meaning through the apprehension of the conventional association of ideas which they help.[326] If you object that as there are the same letters in rasa as in sara, in nava as in vana, in díná as in nadí, in mára as in ráma, in rája as in jára, &c., these several pairs of words would not convey a different meaning, we reply that the difference in the order of the letters will produce a difference in the meaning. This has been said by Tautátita—

Therefore, as there is a well-known rule that when the same fault attaches to both sides of an argument it cannot be urged against one alone, we maintain that the hypothesis of the existence of a separate thing called sphoṭa is unnecessary, as we have proved that it is the letters which express the word's meaning [your arguments against our view having been shown to be irrelevant].

All this long oration is really only like a drowning man's catching at a straw;[327] for either of the alternatives is impossible, whether you hold that it is the single letters or their aggregation which conveys the meaning of the word. It cannot be the former, because a collection of separate letters, without any one pervading cause,[328] could never produce the idea of a word any more than a collection of separate flowers would form a garland without a string. Nor can it be the latter, because the letters, being separately pronounced and done with, cannot combine into an aggregate. For we use the term "aggregate" where a number of objects are perceived to be united together in one place; thus we apply it to a Grislea tomentosa, an Acacia catechu, a Butea frondosa, &c., or to an elephant, a man, a horse, &c., seen together in one place; but these letters are not perceived thus united together, as they are severally produced and pass away; and even on the hypothesis of their having a "manifesting" power, they can have no power to form an aggregate, as they can only manifest a meaning successively and not simultaneously. Nor can you imagine an artificial aggregate in the letters, because this would involve a "mutual dependence" (or reasoning in a circle); for, on the one hand, the letters would only become a word when their power to convey [214]one meaning had been established; and, on the other hand, their power to convey one meaning would only follow when the fact of their being a word was settled. Therefore, since it is impossible that letters should express the meaning, we must accept the hypothesis of sphoṭa. "But even on your own hypothesis that there is a certain thing called sphoṭa which expresses the meaning, the same untenable alternative will recur which we discussed before; and therefore it will only be a case of the proverb that 'the dawn finds the smuggler with the revenue-officer's house close by.'"[329] This, however, is only the inflation of the world of fancy from the wide difference between the two cases. For the first letter, in its manifesting power, reveals the invisible sphoṭa, and each successive letter makes this sphoṭa more and more manifest, just as the Veda, after one reading, is not retained, but is made sure by repetition; or as the real nature of a jewel is not clearly seen at the first glance, but is definitely manifested at the final examination. This is in accordance with the authoritative saying (of the teacher): "The seed is implanted by the sounds, and, when the idea is ripened by the successive repetition, the word is finally ascertained simultaneously with the last uttered letter." Therefore, since Bhartṛihari has shown in his first book that the letters of a word [being many and successive] cannot manifest the meaning of the word, as is implied by the very phrase, "We gain such and such a meaning from such and such a word," we are forced to assume the existence[330] of an indivisible sphoṭa as a distinct category, which has the power to manifest the word's meaning. All this has been established in the discussion (in the Mahábháshya) on "genus" (játi), which aims at proving that the meaning of all words is ultimately that summum genus, i.e., that [215]existence whose characteristic is perfect knowledge of the supreme reality[331] (Brahman).

"But if all words mean only that supreme existence, then all words will be synonyms, having all the same meaning; and your grand logical ingenuity would produce an astonishing result in demonstrating the uselessness of human language as laboriously using several words to no purpose at the same time!" Thus it has been said—

All this is only the ruminating of empty ether; for just as the colourless crystal is affected by different objects which colour it as blue, red, yellow, &c., so, since the summum genus, Brahman, is variously cognised through its connection with different things, as severally identified with each, we thus account for the use of the various conventional words which arise from the different species,[332] as cow, &c., these being "existence" (the summum genus) as found in the individual cow, &c. To this purport we have the following authoritative testimony—

And so it has been said by Hari, "Existence [pure and simple] being divided, when found in cows, &c., by reason of its connection with different subjects, is called this or that species, and on it all words depend. This they call the meaning of the stem and of the root. This is existence, this the great soul; and it is this which the affixed tva, tal, &c., express" (Páṇini v. 1, 119).

[216]

"Existence" is that great summum genus which is found in cows, horses, &c., differentiated by the various subjects in which it resides; and the inferior species, "cow," "horse," &c., are not really different from it; for the species "cow" and "horse" (gotva and aśvatva) are not really new subjects, but each is "existence" as residing in the subject "cow" and "horse." Therefore all words, as expressing definite meanings, ultimately rest on that one summum genus existence, which is differentiated by the various subjects, cows, &c., in which it resides; and hence "existence" is the meaning of the stem-word (prátipadika). A "root" is sometimes defined as that which expresses bháva;[333] now, as bháva is "existence," the meaning of a root is really existence.[334] Others say that a root should be defined as that which expresses "action" (kriyá); but here again the meaning of a root will really be "existence," since this "action" will be a genus, as it is declared to reside in many subjects, in accordance with the common definition of a genus, in the line—

So, too, if we accept Páṇini's definition (v. 1, 119), "Let the affixes tva and tal come after a word [denoting anything], when we speak of the nature (bháva) thereof," it is clear from the very fact that abstract terms ending in tva or tá [as aśvatva and aśvatá] are used in the sense of bháva, that they do express "existence." "This is pure existence" from its being free from all coming into being or ceasing to be; it is eternal, since, as all phenomena are developments thereof, it is devoid of any limit in space, time, or substance: this existence is called "the great soul." Such is the meaning of Hari's two kárikás quoted above. So, too, it is laid down in the discussion on sambandha [in Hari's verses] that the ultimate meaning of all [217]words is that something whose characteristic is perfect knowledge of the real meaning of the word Substance.

"The true Reality is ascertained by its illusory forms; the true substance is declared by words through illusory disguises; as the object, 'Devadatta's house,' is apprehended by a transitory cause of discrimination,[335] but by the word 'house' itself, the pure idea [without owners] is expressed."[336]

So, too, the author of the Mahábháshya, when explaining the Várttika,[337] "a word, its meaning, and its connection being fixed," in the passage beginning "substance is eternal," has shown that the meaning of all words is Brahman, expressed by the word "substance" and determined by various unreal[338] conditions [as "the nature of horse," &c.]

According to the opinion of Vájapyáyana, who maintains that all words mean a genus, words like "cow," &c.,[339] denote a genus which resides by intimate relation in different substances; and when this genus is apprehended, through its connection with it we apprehend the particular substance in which it resides. Words like "white," &c., denote a genus which similarly resides in qualities; through the connection with genus we apprehend the quality, and through the connection with the quality we apprehend the individual substance. So in the case of words expressing particular names, in consequence of the recognition that "this is the same person from his first coming into existence to his final destruction, in spite of the difference produced by the various states of childhood, youth, adolescence, &c.," we must accept a fixed genus as Devadatta-hood,[340] &c. [as directly denoted by them]. So, too, in words expressing "action" a genus is denoted; this is the root-meaning, as in paṭhati, "he reads," &c., since we find here a meaning common to all who read.

[218]

In the doctrine of Vyáḍi, who maintained that words meant individual things [and not classes or genera], the individual thing is put forward as that which is primarily denoted, while the genus is implied [as a characteristic mark]; and he thus avoids the alleged faults of "indefiniteness," and "wandering away from its proper subject."[341]

Both views are allowed by the great teacher Páṇini; since in i. 2, 58, he accepts the theory that a word means the genus, where he says that "when the singular is used to express the class the plural may be optionally used" [as in the sentence, "A Bráhman is to be honoured," which may equally run, "Bráhmans are to be honoured"]; while in i. 2, 64, he accepts the theory that a word means the individual thing, where he says, "In any individual case there is but one retained of things similar in form" [i.e., the dual means Ráma and Ráma, and the plural means Ráma, and Ráma and Ráma; but we retain only one, adding a dual or plural affix]. Grammar, in fact, being adapted to all assemblies, can accept both theories without being compromised. Therefore both theories are in a sense true;[342] but the real fact is that all words ultimately mean the Supreme Brahman.

As it has been said—

Hari also, in his chapter discussing sambandha, thus describes the nature of this true meaning—

[219]

So too in his description of substance, he says—

The essential unity of the word and its meaning is maintained in order to preserve inviolate the non-duality of all things which is a cardinal doctrine of our philosophy.

"This [Supreme Nature] is the thing denoted by all words, and it is identical with the word; but the relation of the two, while they are thus ultimately identical, varies as does the relation of the two souls."[344]

The meaning of this Káriká is that Brahman is the one object denoted by all words; and this one object has various differences imposed upon it according to each particular form; but the conventional variety of the differences produced by these illusory conditions is only the result of ignorance. Non-duality is the true state; but through the power of "concealment"[345] [exercised by illusion] at the time of the conventional use of words a manifold expansion takes place, just as is the case during sleep. Thus those skilled in Vedánta lore tell us—

When the unchangeable Supreme Brahman is thus known as the existent joy-thought and identical with the individual soul, and when primeval ignorance is abolished, [220]final bliss is accomplished, which is best defined as the abiding in identity with this Brahman, according to the text, "He who is well versed in the Word-Brahman attains to the Supreme Brahman."[346] And thus we establish the fact that the "exposition of words" is the means to final bliss.

Thus it has been said—

And so again—

Therefore our final conclusion is that the Śástra of grammar should be studied as being the means for attaining the chief end of man.

E. B. C.

[221]

CHAPTER XIV.

THE SÁNKHYA-DARŚANA.

"But how can we accept the doctrine of illusory emanation [thus held by the grammarians, following the guidance of the púrva and uttara Mímáṃsá schools], when the system of development propounded by the Sáṅkhyas is still alive to oppose it?" Such is their loud vaunt. Now the Śástra of this school may be concisely said to maintain four several kinds of existences, viz., that which is evolvent[348] only, that which is evolute only, that which is both evolute and evolvent, and that which is neither. (a.) Of these the first is that which is only evolvent, called the root-evolvent or the primary; it is not itself the evolute of anything else. It evolves, hence it is called the evolvent (prakṛiti) since it denotes in itself the equilibrium of the three qualities, goodness, activity, and darkness. This is expressed [in the Sáṅkhya Káriká], "the root-evolvent is no evolute." It is called the root-evolvent, as being both root and evolvent; it is the root of all the various effects, as the so-called "great one," &c., but of it, as the primary, there is no root, as otherwise we should have a regressus ad infinitum. Nor can you reply that such a regressus ad infinitum is no objection, if, like the continued series of seed and shoot, it can be proved by the evidence of our senses,[349]—because here there is no evidence to establish the hypothesis. (b.) The "evolutes and evolvents" are the great one, egoism, and the subtile elements,—thus the [222]Sáṅkhya Káriká (§ 3), "the seven, the great one, &c., are evolute-evolvents." The seven are the seven principles, called the great one, &c. Among these the great principle, called also the intellect,[350] &c., is itself the evolute of nature and the evolvent of egoism; in the same manner the principle egoism, called also "self-consciousness" (abhimána), is the evolute of the great one, intellect; but this same principle, as affected by the quality of darkness, is the evolvent of the five rudiments called subtile elements; and, as affected by the quality of goodness, it is the evolvent of the eleven organs, viz., the five organs of perception, the eye, ear, nose, tongue, and skin; the five organs of action, the voice, hands, feet, anus, and generative organ; and the mind, partaking of the character of both; nor can you object that in our arrangement the third quality, activity, is idle, as it acts as a cause by producing action in the others. This has been thus declared by Íśvara Kṛishṇa in his Kárikás[351] (§ 24-27), "Self-consciousness is egoism. Thence proceeds a twofold creation, the elevenfold set and the five elemental rudiments. From modified[352] egoism originates the class of eleven imbued with goodness; from egoism as the source of the elements originate the rudimentary elements, and these are affected by darkness; but it is only from egoism as affected by activity that the one and the other rise. The intellectual organs are the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue, and the skin; those of action are the voice, feet, hands, anus, and organ of generation. In this set is mind, which has the character of each; it determines, and it is an organ (like the other ten) from having a common [223]property with them."[353] All this has been explained at length by the teacher Váchaspati Miśra in the Sáṅkhya-tattva-kaumudí.

(c.) The "evolute only" means the five gross elements, ether, &c., and the eleven organs, as said in the Káriká, "The evolute consists of sixteen;" that is, the set of sixteen is evolute only, and not evolvent. Although it may be said that earth, &c., are the evolvents of such productions as cows, jars, &c., yet these are not a different "principle" (tattva) from earth, &c., and therefore earth, &c., are not what we term "evolvents;" as the accepted idea of an evolvent is that which is the material cause of a separate principle; and in cows, jars, &c., there is the absence of being any such first principle, in consequence of their being all alike gross [i.e., possessed of dimensions] and perceptible to the senses. The five gross elements, ether, &c., are respectively produced from sound, touch, form, taste, and smell, each subtile element being accompanied by all those which precede it, and thus the gross elements will have respectively one, two, three, four, and five qualities.[354] The creation of the organs has been previously described. This is thus propounded in the Sáṅkhya Káriká (§ 22)—

(d.) The soul is neither,—as is said in the Káriká, "The soul is neither evolvent nor evolute." That is, the soul, being absolute, eternal, and subject to no development, is itself neither the evolvent nor the evolute of aught beside. Three kinds of proof are accepted as establishing these twenty-five principles; and thus the Káriká (§ 4).

"Perception, inference, and the testimony of worthy persons are acknowledged to be the threefold proof, for [224]they comprise every mode of demonstration. It is from proof that there results belief of that which is to be proven."

Here a fourfold discussion arises as to the true nature of cause and effect. The Saugatas[355] maintain that the existent is produced from the non-existent; the Naiyáyikas, &c., that the (as yet) non-existent is produced from the existent; the Vedántins, that all effects are an illusory emanation from the existent and not themselves really existent; while the Sáṅkhyas hold that the existent is produced from the existent.

(a.) Now the first opinion is clearly untenable, since that which is itself non-existent and unsubstantial can never be a cause any more than the hare's horn; and, again, the real and unreal can never be identical.

(b.) Nor can the non-existent be produced from the existent; since it is impossible that that which, previous to the operation of the originating cause, was as non-existent as a hare's horn should ever be produced, i.e., become connected with existence; for not even the cleverest man living can make blue yellow.[356] If you say, "But are not existence and non-existence attributes of the same jar?" this is incorrect, since we cannot use such an expression as "its quality" in regard to a non-existent subject, for it would certainly imply that the subject itself did exist. Hence we conclude that the effect is existent even previously to the operation of the cause, which only produces the manifestation of this already existent thing, just like the manifestation of the oil in sesame seed by pressing, or of the milk in cows by milking. Again, there is no example whatever to prove the production of a thing previously non-existent.

Moreover, the cause must produce its effect as being either connected with it or not connected; in the former [225]alternative the effect's existence is settled by the rule that connection can only be between two existent things; in the latter, any and every effect might arise from any and every cause, as there is nothing to determine the action of an unconnected thing. This has been thus put by the Sáṅkhya teacher:—"From the supposed non-existence of the effect, it can have no connection with causes which always accompany existence; and to him who holds the production of a non-connected thing there arises an utter want of determinateness." If you rejoin that "the cause, though not connected with its effect, can yet produce it, where it has a capacity of so doing, and this capacity of producing is to be inferred from seeing the effect actually produced," still this cannot be allowed, since in such a case as "there is a capacity for producing oil in sesame seeds," you cannot determine, while the oil is non-existent, that there is this capacity in the sesame seeds, whichever alternative you may accept as to their being connected or not with the oil [since our before-mentioned dilemma will equally apply here].

From our tenet that the cause and effect are identical, it follows that the effect does not exist distinct from the cause; thus the cloth is not something distinct from the threads, as it abides in the latter [as its material cause]; but where this identity is not found, there we do not find the relation of cause and effect; thus a horse and a cow are distinct from each other [for one is not produced from the other, and therefore their qualities are not the same]; but the cloth is an acknowledged effect, and therefore not anything different from its cause.[357] If you object that, if this were true, the separate threads ought to fulfil the office of clothing, we reply, that the office of clothing is fulfilled by the threads manifesting the nature of cloth when they are placed in a particular arrangement. As the limbs of a tortoise when they retire within its shell are concealed, [226]and, when they come forth, are revealed, so the particular effects, as cloth, &c., of a cause, as threads, &c., when they come forth and are revealed, are said to be produced; and when they retire and are concealed, they are said to be destroyed; but there is no such thing as the production of the non-existent or the destruction of the existent. As has been said in the Bhagavad Gítá (ii. 16)—

And, in fact, it is by inference from its effects that we establish the existence of the great evolvent, Nature (prakṛiti). This has been said [in the Káriká, § 9]—

Nor can we say [with the Vedántin] that the world is an illusory emanation from the one existent Brahman, because we have no contradictory evidence to preclude by its superior validity the primâ facie belief that the external world is real [as we have in the case of mistaking a rope for a snake, where a closer inspection will discover the error]; and again, where the subject and the attributed nature are so dissimilar as the pure intelligent Brahman and the unintelligent creation, we can no more allow the supposed attribution to be possible than in the case of gold and silver [which no one mistakes for each other]. Hence we conclude that an effect which is composed of happiness, misery, and stupidity, must imply a cause similarly composed; and our argument is as follows:—The subject of the argument, viz., the external world, must have a material cause composed of happiness, misery, and stupidity, because it is itself endued therewith; whatever is endued with certain attributes must have a cause endued [227]with the same,—thus a ring has gold for its material cause, because it has the attributes of gold; our subject is a similar case, therefore we may draw a similar conclusion. What we call "being composed of happiness" in the external world is the quality of goodness; the "being composed of misery" is the quality of activity;[359] the "being composed of stupidity" is the quality of darkness; hence we establish our cause composed of the three qualities (i.e., prakṛiti, Nature). And we see that individual objects are found by experience to have these three qualities; thus Maitra's happiness is found in his wife Satyavatí, because the quality of "goodness" in her is manifested towards him; but she is the misery of her fellow-wives, because the quality of "activity" is manifested towards them; while she causes indifference to Chaitra who does not possess her, because towards him the quality of "darkness" is manifested. So, too, in other cases also; thus a jar, when obtained, causes us pleasure; when seized by others it causes us pain; but it is viewed with indifference by one who has no interest in it. Now this being regarded with no interest is what we mean by "stupidity," since the word moha is derived from the root muh, "to be confused," since no direct action of the mind arises towards those objects to which it is indifferent. Therefore we hold that all things, being composed of pleasure, pain, and stupidity, must have as their cause Nature, which consists of the three qualities. And so it is declared in the Śvetáśvatara Upanishad (iv. 5)—

Here the words "red," "white," and "black," express the qualities "activity," "goodness," and "darkness," from [228]their severally possessing the same attributes of colouring, manifesting, and concealing.

Here, however, it may be objected, "But will not your unintelligent Nature, without the superintendence of something intelligent, fail to produce these effects, intellect, &c.? therefore there must be some intelligent superintendent; and hence we must assume an all-seeing, supreme Lord." We reply that this does not follow, since even unintelligent Nature will act under the force of an impulse; and experience shows us that an unintelligent thing, without any intelligent superintendent, does act for the good of the soul, just as the unintelligent milk acts for the growth of the calf, or just as the unintelligent rain acts for the welfare of living creatures; and so unintelligent Nature will act for the liberation of the soul. As it has been said in the Káriká (§ 57)—

But as for the doctrine of "a Supreme Being who acts from compassion," which has been proclaimed by beat of drum by the advocates of his existence, this has well-nigh passed away out of hearing, since the hypothesis fails to meet either of the two alternatives. For does he act thus before or after creation? If you say "before," we reply that as pain cannot arise in the absence of bodies, &c., there will be no need, as long as there is no creation, for his desire to free living beings from pain [which is the main characteristic of compassion]; and if you adopt the second alternative, you will be reasoning in a circle, as on the one hand you will hold that God created the world through compassion [as this is His motive in acting at all], and on the other hand[360] that He compassionated after He had created. Therefore we hold that the development of unintelligent Nature [even without any intelligent [229]superintendent]—in the order of the series intellect, self-consciousness, &c.,—is caused by the union of Nature and Soul, and the moving impulse is the good of Soul. Just as there takes place a movement in the iron in the proximity of the unmoved magnet, so there takes place a movement in Nature in the proximity of the unmoved Soul; and this union of Nature and Soul is caused by mutual dependence, like the union of the lame man and the blind man. Nature, as the thing to be experienced, depends on Soul the experiencer; and Soul looks to final bliss, as it seeks to throw off the three kinds of pain, which, though really apart from it, have fallen upon it by its coming under the shadow of intellect through not recognising its own distinction therefrom.[361] This final bliss [or absolute isolation] is produced by the discrimination of Nature and Soul, nor is this end possible without it; therefore Soul depends on Nature for its final bliss. Just as a lame man and a blind man,[362] travelling along with a caravan, by some accident having become separated from their companions, wandered slowly about in great dismay, till by good luck they met each other, and then the lame man mounted on the blind man's back, and the blind man, following the path indicated by the lame man, reached his desired goal, as did the lame man also, mounted on the other's shoulders; so, too, creation is effected by Nature and the soul, which are likewise mutually dependent. This has been said in the Káriká (§ 21)—

"Well, I grant that Nature's activity may take place for the good of the soul, but how do you account for its [230]ceasing to act?" I reply, that as a wilful woman whose faults have once been seen by her husband does not return to him, or as an actress, having performed her part, retires from the stage, so too does Nature desist. Thus it is said in the Káriká (§ 59)—

For this end has the doctrine of those who follow Kapila, the founder of the atheistic Sáṅkhya School, been propounded.

E. B. C.

[231]

CHAPTER XV.

THE PATANJALI-DARSÁNA.

We now set forth the doctrine of that school which professes the opinions of such Munis as Patañjali and others, who originated the system of the Theistic Sáṅkhya philosophy. This school follows the so-called Yoga Śástra promulgated by Patañjali, and consisting of four chapters, which also bears the name of the "Sáṅkhya Pravachana," or detailed explanation of the Sáṅkhya.[363] In the first chapter thereof the venerable Patañjali, having in the opening aphorism, "Now is the exposition of Concentration" (yoga), avowed his commencement of the Yoga Śástra, proceeds in the second aphorism to give a definition of his subject, "Concentration is the hindering of the modifications of the thinking principle," and then he expounds at length the nature of Meditation (samádhi). In the second chapter, in the series of aphorisms commencing, "The practical part of Concentration is mortification, muttering, and resignation to the Supreme," he expounds the practical part of yoga proper to him whose mind is not yet thoroughly abstracted (iii. 9), viz., the five external subservients or means, "forbearance," and the rest. In the third chapter, in the series commencing "Attention is the fastening [of the mind] on some spot," he expounds the three internal subservients—attention, contemplation, and meditation, collectively called by the name "subjugation" (saṃyama), and also the various superhuman powers which [232]are their subordinate fruit. In the fourth chapter, in the series commencing, "Perfections spring from birth, plants, spells, mortification, and meditation," he expounds the highest end, Emancipation, together with a detailed account of the five so-called "perfections" (siddhis). This school accepts the old twenty-five principles [of the Sáṅkhya], "Nature," &c.; only adding the Supreme Being as the twenty-sixth—a Soul untouched by affliction, action, fruit, or stock of desert, who of His own will assumed a body in order to create, and originated all secular or Vaidic traditions,[364] and is gracious towards those living beings who are burned in the charcoal of mundane existence.

"But how can such an essence as soul, undefiled as the [glossy] leaf of a lotus, be said to be burned, that we should need to accept any Supreme Being as gracious to it?" To this we reply, that the quality Goodness develops itself as the understanding, and it is this which is, as it were, burned by the quality Activity; and the soul, by the influence of Darkness, blindly identifying itself with this suffering quality, is also said itself to suffer. Thus the teachers have declared—

It has been also said by Patañjali,[366] "The power of the enjoyer, which is itself incapable of development or of transference, in an object which is developed and transferred experiences the modifications thereof."

Now the "power of the enjoyer" is the power of intelligence, and this is the soul; and in an object which is [233]"developed" and "transferred," or reflected,—i.e., in the thinking principle or the understanding,—it experiences the modifications thereof, i.e., the power of intelligence, being reflected in the understanding, receives itself the shadow of the understanding, and imitates the modifications of it. Thus the soul, though in itself pure, sees according to the idea produced by the understanding; and, while thus seeing at second-hand, though really it is different from the understanding, it appears identical therewith. It is while the soul is thus suffering, that, by the practice of the eight subservient means, forbearance, religious observance, &c., earnestly, uninterruptedly, and for a long period, and by continued resignation to the Supreme Being, at length there is produced an unclouded recognition of the distinction between the quality Goodness and the Soul; and the five "afflictions," ignorance, &c., are radically destroyed, and the various "stocks of desert," fortunate or unfortunate, are utterly abolished, and, the undefiled soul abiding emancipated, perfect Emancipation is accomplished.

The words of the first aphorism, "Now is the exposition of concentration," establish the four preliminaries which lead to the intelligent reader's carrying the doctrine into practice, viz., the object-matter, the end proposed, the connection [between the treatise and the object], and the person properly qualified to study it. The word "now" (atha) is accepted as having here an inceptive meaning, [as intimating that a distinct topic is now commenced]. "But," it may be objected, "there are several possible significations of this word atha; why, then, should you show an unwarranted partiality for this particular 'inceptive' meaning? The great Canon for nouns and their gender [the Amara Kosha Dictionary] gives many such meanings. 'Atha is used in the sense of an auspicious particle,—after,—now (inceptive),—what? (interrogatively),—and all (comprehensively).' Now we willingly surrender such senses as interrogation or comprehensiveness;[234] but since there are four senses certainly suitable, i.e., 'after,' 'an auspicious particle,' 'reference to a previous topic,' and 'the inceptive now,' there is no reason for singling out the last." This objection, however, will not stand, for it cannot bear the following alternative. If you maintain the sense of "after," then do you hold that it implies following after anything whatever, or only after some definite cause as comprehended under the general definition of causation,[367] i.e., "previous existence [relatively to the effect]"? It cannot be the former, for, in accordance with the proverb that "No one stands for a single moment inactive," everybody must always do everything after previously doing something else; and since this is at once understood without any direct mention at all, there could be no use in employing the particle atha to convey this meaning. Nor can it be the latter alternative; because, although we fully grant that the practice of concentration does in point of fact follow after previous tranquillity, &c., yet these are rather the necessary preliminaries to the work of exposition, and consequently cannot have that avowed predominance [which the presumed cause should have]. "But why should we not hold that the word atha implies that this very exposition is avowedly the predominant object, and does follow after previous tranquillity of mind, &c.?" We reply, that the aphorism uses the term "exposition" (anuśásana), and this word, etymologically analysed, implies that by which the yoga is explained, accompanied with definitions, divisions, and detailed means and results; and there is no rule that such an exposition must follow previous tranquillity of mind, &c., the rule rather being that, as far as the teacher is concerned, it must follow a profound knowledge of the truth and a desire to impart it to others; for it is rather the student's desire to know and his derived knowledge, which should have quiet of mind, &c., as their precursors, in accordance with the words of Śruti: "Therefore [235]having become tranquil, self-subdued, loftily indifferent, patient, full of faith and intent, let him see the soul in the soul."[368] Nor can the word atha imply the necessary precedence, in the teacher, of a profound knowledge of the truth and a desire to impart it to others; because, even granting that both these are present, they need not to be mentioned thus prominently, as they are powerless in themselves to produce the necessary intelligence and effort in the student. Still [however we may settle these points] the question arises, Is the exposition of the yoga ascertained to be a cause of final beatitude or not? If it is, then it is still a desirable object, even if certain presupposed conditions should be absent; and if it is not, then it must be undesirable, whatever conditions may be present.[369] But it is clear that the exposition in question is such a cause, since we have such a passage of the Śruti as that [in the Kaṭha Upanishad, ii. 12]: "By the acquirement of yoga or intense concentration on the Supreme Soul, the wise man having meditated leaves behind joy and sorrow;" and again, such a passage of the Smṛiti as that [in the Bhagavad Gítá, ii. 53]: "The intellect unwavering in contemplation will then attain yoga." Hence we conclude that it is untenable to interpret atha as implying that the exposition must follow "after" a previous inquiry on the part of the student, or "after" a previous course of ascetic training and use of elixirs, &c. [to render the body strong].

But in the case of the Vedánta Sútras, which open with the aphorism, "Now, therefore, there is the wish to know Brahman," Śaṅkara Áchárya has declared that the inceptive meaning of atha must be left out of the question, as the wish to know Brahman is not to be undertaken [at will]; and therefore it must be there interpreted to mean "after," i.e., that this desire must follow a previous [236]course of tranquillity, &c., as laid down by the well-known rule which enjoins the practice of tranquillity, self-control, indifference, endurance, contemplation, and faith, the object being to communicate the teaching to a proper student as distinguished by the possession of the four so-called "means."[370]

"Well, then, let us grant that atha cannot mean 'after;' but why should it not be simply an auspicious particle?" But this it cannot be, from the absence of any connection between the context and such auspicious meaning. Auspiciousness implies the obtaining of an unimpeached and desired good, and what is desired is so desired as being the attainment of pleasure or the avoidance of pain; but this auspiciousness cannot belong to the exposition of yoga, since it is in itself neither pleasure nor the cessation of pain.[371] Therefore it cannot be at all established that the meaning of the aphorism is that "the exposition of the yoga is auspicious;" for auspiciousness cannot be either the primary meaning of atha or its secondary meaning by metonymy, since it is its very sound which is in itself auspicious [without any reference to the meaning], like that of a drum. "But why not say that just as an implied meaning may enter into the direct meaning of a sentence, so an effect [like this of auspiciousness] may also be included, since both are equally unexpressed so far as the actual words are concerned?"[372] We reply, that in the meaning of a sentence the connection must be between the meaning of one word and that of another; otherwise we should be guilty of breaking the seal which the rule of the grammarians has set, that "verbal expectancy[373] can be fulfilled by words alone."

[237]

"But ought not a prayer for an auspicious commencement to be put at the beginning of a Śástra, in order to lay the hosts of obstacles that would hinder the completion of the work which the author desires to begin, and also to observe the immemorial practice of the good, since it has been said by the wise, 'Those śástras become widely famous which have auspicious commencements, auspicious middles, and auspicious endings, and their students have long lives and are invincible in disputation'?[374] Now the word atha implies 'auspiciousness,' since there is a Smṛiti which says,

"Therefore let the word atha stand here as signifying 'auspiciousness,' like the word 'vṛiddhi' used by Páṇini in his opening sútra 'vṛiddhir ád aich.'"[375] This view, however, is untenable; since the very word atha, when heard, has an auspicious influence, even though it be employed to convey some other special signification, just as the hearing the sound of lutes, flutes, &c. [is auspicious for one starting on a journey]. If you still object, "How can the particle atha have any other effect, if it is specially used here to produce the idea that the meaning of the sentence is that a new topic is commenced?" we reply that it certainly can have such other additional effect, just as we see that jars of water brought for some other purpose are auspicious omens at the commencement of a journey.[376] Nor does this contradict the smṛiti, [238]since the smṛiti will still hold good, as the words "they are both auspicious" mean only that they produce an auspicious effect.

Nor can the particle atha have here the meaning of "reference to a previous topic," since the previously mentioned faults will all equally apply here, as this meaning really involves that of "after" [which we have already discussed and rejected]. And again, in such discussions as this, as to whether this particular atha means "the inceptive now" or "after," if another topic had been previously suggested, then "reference thereto" would be a possible meaning; but in the present case [where no other topic has been previously suggested] it is not a possible meaning. Therefore, by exhaustion, the commentator finally adopts, for the atha of the sútra, the remaining meaning of "the inceptive now." So, when it is said [in the Táṇḍya Bráhmaṇa, xvi. 8, 1; xvi. 10, 1], "Now this is the Jyotis," "Now this is the Viśvajyotis,"[377] the particle atha is accepted as signifying the commencement of the description of a particular sacrifice, just as the atha in the commencement of the Mahábháshya, "now comes the exposition of words," signifies the commencement of the Institutes of Grammar. This has been declared by Vyása in his Commentary on the Yoga Aphorisms, "the atha in this opening aphorism indicates a commencement;" and Váchaspati has similarly explained it in his gloss; therefore it may be considered as settled that the atha here indicates a commencement and also signifies auspiciousness. Therefore, accepting the view [239]that this atha implies a commencement, let the student be left in peace to strive after a successful understanding of the śástra through the attainment of the yoga, which is its proposed subject, by means of the teacher's explanation of its entire purport. But here some one may say, "Does not the smṛiti of Yájñavalkya say, 'Hiraṇyagarbha is the promulgator of the Yoga, and no other ancient sage?' how then is Patañjali the teacher thereof?" We reply that it was for this reason that the venerable Patañjali,[378] that ocean of compassion, considering how difficult it was to grasp all the different forms of Yoga scattered up and down in the Puráṇas, &c., and wishing to collect together their essence, commenced his anuśásana,—the preposition anu implying that it was a teaching which followed a primary revelation and was not itself the immediate origin of the system.

Since this atha in the aphorism signifies "commencement," the full meaning of the sentence comes out as follows: "be it known that the institute for the exposition of the yoga is now commenced." In this institute the "object-matter," as being that which is produced by it, is yoga [or the "concentration of the mind"], with its means and its fruit; the producing this is its inferior "end;" supreme absorption (kaivalya) is the highest "end" of the yoga when it is produced. The "connection" between the institute and yoga is that of the producer and the thing to be produced; the "connection" between yoga and supreme absorption is that of the means and the end; and this is well known from Śruti and Smṛiti, as I have before shown. And it is established by the general context that those who aim at liberation are the duly qualified persons to hear this institute. Nor need any one be alarmed lest a similar course should be adopted with the opening aphorism of the Vedánta sútras, "Now, therefore, there is a wish to know Brahman;" and [240]lest here, too, we should seek to establish by the general context that all persons who aim at liberation are duly qualified students of the Vedánta. For the word atha, as there used, signifies "succession" [or "after"]; and it is a settled point that the doctrine can only be transmitted through a regular channel to duly qualified students, and consequently the question cannot arise as to whether any other meaning is suggested by the context. Hence it has been said, "When Śruti comes [as the determining authority] 'the subject-matter' and the rest have no place."[379] The full meaning of this is as follows: Where a thing is not apprehended from the Veda itself, there the "subject-matter" and the rest can establish the true meaning, not otherwise; but wherever we can attain the meaning by a direct text, there the other modes of interpretation are irrelevant. For when a thing is declared by a text of the Veda which makes its meaning obvious at once, the "subject-matter" and the rest either establish a contrary conclusion or one not contrary. Now, in the former case, the authority which would establish this contrary conclusion is [by the very nature of "śruti"] already precluded from having any force; and in the latter it is useless. This is all declared in Jaimini's aphorism [iii. 3, 14]; "A definite text, a 'sign,' the 'sentence,' the 'subject-matter,' the 'relative position,' or 'the title,'—when any of these come into collision, the later in order is the weaker because its meaning is more remote"[380] [and therefore less obvious]. It has been thus summed up—

[241]

Therefore [after all this long discussion] it may be now considered as settled that, since it has an "object," as well as the other preliminaries, the study of the Śástra, which teaches the Yoga, is to be commenced like that of the Vedánta, which discusses the nature of Brahman. "But," it may be objected, "it is the Yoga which was said to be the object-matter, since it is this which is to be produced, not the Śástra." We grant that the Yoga is the principal object, as that which is to be produced; but since it is produced by the Śástra, especially directed thereto, this Śástra is the means for its production, and, as a general rule, the agent's activity is directly concerned with the means rather than with the end. Just as the operations of Devadatta the woodcutter, i.e., his lifting his arm up and down, &c., relate rather to the instrument, i.e., the axe, than to the object, i.e., the tree, so here the speaker, Patañjali, in his immediate action of speaking, means the Yoga-Śástra as his primary object, while he intends the Yoga itself in his ultimate action of "denotation." In consequence of this distinction, the real meaning is that the commencing the Yogaśástra is that which primarily [242]claims our attention; while the "yoga," or the restraint of the modifications of the mind, is what is to be expounded in this Sáśtra. "But as we read in the lists of roots that the root yuj is used in the sense of 'joining,' should not the word yoga, its derivative, mean 'conjunction,' and not 'restraint'? And indeed this has been said by Yájñavalkya:[381]—

This, however, is untenable, since there is no possibility of any such action,[382] &c., in either as would produce this conjunction of the two souls. [Nor, again, is such an explanation needed in order to remove the opposition of other philosophical schools]; for the notion of the conjunction of two eternal things is opposed to the doctrines of the Vaiśeshika and Nyáya schools [and therefore they would still oppose our theory]. And even if we accepted the explanation in accordance with the Mímáṃsá [or Vedánta], our Yogaśástra would be rendered nugatory by this concession [and the very ground cut from under our feet]; because the identity of the individual and supreme souls being in that school something already accomplished, it could not be regarded as something to be produced by our Śástra. And lastly, as it is notorious that roots are used in many different senses, the root yuj may very well be used here in the sense of "contemplation."[383] Thus it has been said—

Therefore some authors expressly give yuj in this sense, and insert in their lists "yuj in the sense of samádhi." Nor does this contradict Yájñavalkya's declaration, as the word yoga, used by him, may bear this meaning; and he has himself said—

[243]

It has been also said by the venerable Vyása [in his Commentary on the Yoga-sútras, i. 1], "Yoga is samádhi."

An objection however, may be here raised that "the term samádhi is used by Patañjali [in ii. 29] in the sense of one of the eight ancillary parts[384] of the eightfold concentration (or yoga); and the whole cannot be thus itself a part as well as a whole, since the principal and the ancillary must be completely different from each other, as all their attendant circumstances must be different, just as we see in the darśapúrṇamása sacrifices and their ancillary rites the prayájas, and therefore samádhi cannot be the meaning of yoga." We however reply that this objection is incorrect; for although the term samádhi is used for etymological reasons[385] to express the ancillary part which is really defined [in iii. 3] as "the contemplation which assumes the form of the object, and is apparently devoid of any nature of its own;" still the further use of this term to describe the principal state is justified by the author's wish to declare the ultimate oneness of the two states [as the inferior ultimately merges into the superior]. Nor can you hold that etymology alone can decide where a word can be used; because if so, as the word go, "a bull," is derived by all grammarians from the root gam, "to go," we ought never to use the phrase "a standing bull" [as the two words would be contradictory], and the man Devadatta, when going, would properly be called go, "a bull;" and, moreover, the Sútra, i. 2, distinctly gives us a definite justification for employing the word in this sense when it declares that "concentration (yoga) is the suppression of the modifications of the thinking principle." [The second or principal sense of samádhi will therefore be quite distinct from the first or inferior.]

[244]

"But surely if yoga is held to be the suppression of the modifications of the thinking principle, then as these modifications abide in the soul as themselves partaking of the nature of knowledge, their suppression, or in other words their 'destruction,' would also abide in the soul, since it is a principle in logic that the antecedent non-existence and destruction abide in the same subject as the counter-entity to these negations;[386] and consequently in accordance with the maxim, 'This newly produced character will affect the subject in which it resides,' the absolute independence of the soul itself would be destroyed." This, however, we do not allow; because we maintain that these various modifications which are to be hindered,[387] such as "right notion," "misconception," "fancy," "sleep," and "memory" (i. 6), are attributes of the internal organ (chitta), since the power of pure intelligence, which is unchangeable, cannot become the site of this discriminative perception. Nor can you object that this unchangeable nature of the intelligent soul[388] has not been proved, since there is an argument to establish it; for the intelligent soul must be unchangeable from the fact that it always knows, while that which is not always knowing is not unchangeable, as the internal organ, &c. And so again, if this soul were susceptible of change, then, as this change would be occasional, we could not predicate its always knowing these modifications. But the true view is, that while the intelligent soul always remains as the presiding witness, there is another essentially pure substance[389] which abides always the same; and as it is this which is affected by any given object, so it is this perceptible substance which is reflected as a shadow on the soul, and so produces an [245]impression;[390] and thus Soul itself is preserved in its own proper independence, and it is maintained to be the always knowing, and no suspicion of change alights upon it. That object by which the understanding becomes affected is known; that object by which it is not affected is not known; for the understanding is called "susceptible of change," because it resembles the iron, as it is susceptible of being affected or not by the influence or want of influence of the object which resembles the magnet,—this influence or want of influence producing respectively knowledge or the want of knowledge. "But inasmuch as the understanding and the senses which spring from egoism are all-pervading, are they not always connected with all objects, and thus would it not follow that there should be a knowledge everywhere and always of all things?" We reply that even although we grant that they are all-pervading, it is only where a given understanding has certain modifications in a given body, and certain objects are in a connection with that body, that the knowledge of these objects only, and none other, is produced to that understanding; and therefore, as this limitation is absolute, we hold that objects are just like magnets, and affect the understanding just as these do iron,—coming in contact with it through the channels of the senses. Therefore, the "modifications" belong to the understanding, not to the soul; and so says the Śruti, "Desire, volition, doubt, faith, want of faith, firmness, want of firmness,—all this is only the mind." Moreover, the sage Pañchaśikha declared the unchangeable nature of the intelligent soul, "The power that enjoys is unchangeable;" and so Patañjali also (iv. 18), "The modifications of the understanding are always known,—this arises from the unchangeableness of the Ruling Soul." The following is the argument drawn out formally to establish the [246]changeableness of the understanding. The understanding is susceptible of change because its various objects are now known and now not known, just like the organ of hearing and the other organs of sense. Now, this change is notoriously threefold, i.e., a change of "property," of "aspect,"[391] and of "condition." When the subject, the understanding, perceives the colour "blue," &c., there is a change of "property" just as when the substance "gold" becomes a bracelet, a diadem, or an armlet; there is a change of "aspect" when the property becomes present, past, or future; and there is a change of "condition" when there is a manifestation or non-manifestation[392] of the perception, as of blue, &c.; or, in the case of gold, the [relative] newness or oldness [at two different moments] would be its change of condition. These three kinds of change must be traced out by the reader for himself in different other cases. And thus we conclude that there is nothing inconsistent in our thesis that, since "right notion" and the other modifications are attributes of the understanding, their "suppression" will also have its site in the same organ.

[Our opponent now urges a fresh and long objection to what we have said above.] "But if we accept your definition that 'yoga is the suppression of the modifications of the chitta,' this will apply also to 'sound sleep,' since there too we may find the suppression [or suspension] of the modifications found in kshipta, vikshipta, múḍha,[393] &c.; but this would be wrong, because it is impossible for the 'afflictions' to be abolished so long as those states called kshipta, &c., remain at all, and because they only hinder the attainment of the summum bonum. Let us examine this more closely. For the understanding is called kshipta, 'restless,' when it is restless [with [247]an excess of the quality rajas], as being tossed about amidst various objects which engage it. It is called múḍha, 'blinded,' when it is possessed by the modification 'sleep' and is sunk in a sea of darkness [owing to an excess of the quality tamas]. It is called vikshipta, 'unrestless,' when it is different from the first state[394] [as filled with the quality sattva]." We must here, however, note a distinction; for, in accordance with the line of the Bhagavad Gítá (vi. 34), 'The mind, O Kṛishṇa, is fickle, turbulent, violent, and obstinate,' the mind, though naturally restless, may occasionally become fixed by the transient fixedness of its objects; but restlessness is innate to it, or it is produced in it by sickness, &c., or other consequences of former actions; as it is said [in the Yoga Sútras, i. 30], 'Sickness, languor, doubt, carelessness, laziness, addiction to objects, erroneous perception, failure to attain some stage, and instability,—these distractions of the mind are called "obstacles".' Here 'sickness' means fever, &c., caused by the want of equilibrium between the three humours; 'languor' is the mind's want of activity; 'doubt' is a sort of notion which embraces two opposite alternatives; 'carelessness' is a negligence of using the means for producing meditation; 'laziness' is a want of exertion from heaviness of body, speech, or mind; 'addiction to objects' is an attachment to objects of sense; 'erroneous perception' is a mistaken notion of one thing for another; 'failure to attain some stage' is the failing for some reason or other to arrive at the state of abstract meditation; 'instability' is the mind's failure to continue there, even when the state of abstract meditation has been reached. Therefore we maintain that the suppression of the mind's modifications cannot be laid down as the definition of yoga.

We reply, that even although we allow that, so far as regards the three conditions of the mind called kshipta, [248]múḍha, and vikshipta, which [as being connected with the three qualities] are all to be avoided as faulty states, the suppression of the modifications in these conditions is itself something to be avoided [and so cannot be called yoga], this does not apply to the other two conditions called ekágra and niruddha, which are to be pursued and attained; and therefore the suppression of the modifications in these two praiseworthy conditions is rightly to be considered as yoga. Now by ekágra we mean that state when the mind, entirely filled with the sattva quality, is devoted to the one object of meditation; and by niruddha we mean that state when all its developments are stopped, and only their latent impressions [or potentialities] remain.

Now this samádhi, "meditation" [in the highest sense], is twofold: "that in which there is distinct recognition" (saṃprajñáta), and "that in which distinct recognition is lost" (asaṃprajñáta) [Yoga S., i. 17, 18].[395] The former is defined as that meditation where the thought is intent on its own object, and all the "modifications," such as "right notion," &c., so far as they depend on external things, are suppressed, or, according to the etymology of the term, it is where the intellect[396] is thoroughly recognised (samyak prajñáyate) as distinct from Nature. It has a fourfold division, as savitarka, savichára, sánanda, and sásmita. Now this "meditation" is a kind of "pondering" (bhávaná), which is the taking into the mind again and again, to the exclusion of all other objects, that which is to be pondered. And that which is thus to be pondered is of two kinds, being either Íśwara or the twenty-five principles. And these principles also are of two kinds—senseless and not senseless. Twenty-four, including nature, intellect, egoism, &c., are senseless; that which is not senseless is Soul. Now among these objects which are to be pondered, when, having taken as the object the gross elements, as earth, [249]&c., pondering is pursued in the form of an investigation as to which is antecedent and which consequent,[397] or in the form of a union of the word, its meaning, and the idea which is to be produced [cf. i. 42]; then the meditation is called "argumentative" (savitarka). When, having taken as its object something subtile, as the five subtile elements and the internal organ, pondering is pursued in relation to space, time, &c., then the meditation is called "deliberative" (savichára). When the mind, commingled with some "passion" and "darkness," is pondered, then the meditation is called "beatific" (sánanda), because "goodness" is then predominant, which consists in the manifestation of joy.[398] When pondering is pursued, having as its object the pure element of "goodness," unaffected by even a little of "passion" or "darkness," then that meditation is called "egoistical" (sásmita), because here personal existence[399] only remains, since the intellectual faculty becomes now predominant, and the quality of "goodness" has become quite subordinate [as a mere stepping-stone to higher things].

But the "meditation, where distinct recognition is lost," consists in the suppression of all "modifications" whatever.

"But" [it may be asked] "was not 'concentration' defined as the suppression of all the modifications? How, then, can the 'meditation where there is distinct recognition' be included in it at all, since we still find active in it that modification of the mind, with the quality of goodness predominant, which views the soul and the quality of goodness as distinct from each other?" This, however, is untenable, because we maintain that concentration is the suppression of the "modifications" of the thinking power, as especially stopping the operation of the "afflictions," the "actions," the "fructifications," and the "stock of deserts."[400]

[250]

The "afflictions" (kleśa) are well known as five, viz., ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion, and tenacity of mundane existence. But here a question is at once raised, In what sense is the word avidyá, "ignorance," used here? Is it to be considered as an avyayíbháva compound, where the former portion is predominant, as in the word "above-board"?[401] or is it a tatpurusha [or karmadháraya] compound, where the latter portion is predominant, as in the word "town-clerk"? or is it a bahuvríhi compound, where both portions are dependent on something external to the compound, as "blue-eyed"? It cannot be the first; for if the former portion of the compound were predominant, then we should have the negation the emphatic part in avidyá (i.e., it would be an instance of what is called the express negation, or prasajya-pratishedha);[402] and consequently, as avidyá would be thus emphatically a negation, it would be unable to produce positive results, as the "afflictions," &c., and the very form of the word should not be feminine, but neuter. It cannot be the second; for any knowledge, whatever thing's absence it may be characterised by (a + vidyá), opposes the "afflictions," &c., and cannot therefore be their source. Nor can it be the third; for then,—in accordance with the words of the author of the Vṛitti,[403] "there is a bahuvríhi compound which is formed with some word meaning 'existence' used after 'not,' with the optional elision of this subsequent word"[404]—we must explain this supposed bahuvríhi compound avidyá as follows: "That buddhi is to be characterised as avidyá (sc. an adjective), [251]of which there is not a vidyá existing." But this explanation is untenable; for such an avidyá could not become the source of the "afflictions;"[405] and yet, on the other hand, it ought to be their source,[406] even though it were associated with the suppression of all the "modifications,"[407] and were also accompanied by that discriminative knowledge of the soul and the quality of goodness [which is found in the sásmita meditation].

Now it is said [in the Yoga Sútras, ii. 4], "Ignorance is the field [or place of origin, i.e., source] of the others, whether they be dormant, extenuated, intercepted, or simple." They are said to be "dormant" when they are not manifested for want of something to wake them up; they are called "extenuated" when, through one's meditating on something that is opposed to them, they are rendered inert; they are called "intercepted" when they are overpowered by some other strong "affliction;" they are called "simple" when they produce their several effects in the direct vicinity of what co-operates with them. This has been expressed by Váchaspati Miśra, in his Gloss on Vyása's Commentary, in the following memorial stanza:—

"No one proposes the fourth solution of the compound avidyá as a dvandva compound,[409] where both portions are equally predominant, because we cannot recognise here two equally independent subjects. Therefore under any [252]one of these three admissible alternatives[410] the common notion of ignorance as being the cause of the 'afflictions' would be overthrown."

[We do not, however, concede this objector's view], because we may have recourse to the other kind of negation called paryudása [where the affirmative part is emphatic], and maintain that avidyá means a contradictory [or wrong] kind of knowledge, the reverse of vidyá; and so it has been accepted by ancient writers. Thus it has been said—

And again—

Váchaspati also says,[411] "The connection of words and their meanings depends on general consent for its certainty; and since we occasionally see that a tatpurusha negation, where the latter portion is properly predominant, may overpower the direct meaning of this latter portion by its contradiction of it, we conclude that even here too [in avidyá] the real meaning is something contrary to vidyá" [i.e., the negative "non-knowledge" becomes ultimately the positive "ignorance"[412]]. It is with a view to this that it is said in the Yoga Aphorisms [ii. 5], "Ignorance is the notion that the non-eternal, the impure, pain, and the non-soul are (severally) eternal, pure, pleasure, and soul." Viparyaya, "misconception," is defined as [253]"the imagining of a thing in what is not that thing,"[413] [i.e., in its opposite]; as, for instance, the imagining the "eternal" in a "non-eternal" thing, i.e., a jar, or the imagining the "pure" in the "impure" body,[414] when it has been declared by a proverbial couplet[415]—

So,—in accordance with the principle enounced in the aphorism (ii. 15), "To the discriminating everything is simply pain, through the pain which arises in the ultimate issue of everything,[416] or through the anxiety to secure it [while it is enjoyed], or through the latent impressions which it leaves behind, and also from the mutual opposition of the influences of the three qualities" [in the form of pleasure, pain, and stupid indifference],—ignorance transfers the idea of "pleasure" to what is really "pain," as, e.g., garlands, sandal-wood, women, &c.; and similarly it conceives the "non-soul," e.g., the body, &c., as the "soul." As it has been said—

Thus this ignorance consists of four kinds.[417]

But [it may be objected] in these four special kinds of ignorance should there not be given some general definition applying to them all, as otherwise their special [254]characteristics cannot be established? For thus it has been said by Bhaṭṭa Kumárila—

This, however, must not be urged here, as it is sufficiently met by the general definition of misconception, already adduced above, as "the imagining of a thing in its opposite."

"Egoism" (asmitá) is the notion that the two separate things, the soul and the quality of purity,[418] are one and the same, as is said (ii. 6), "Egoism is the identifying of the seer with the power of sight." "Desire" (rága) is a longing, in the shape of a thirst, for the means of enjoyment, preceded by the remembrance of enjoyment, on the part of one who has known joy. "Aversion" (dvesha) is the feeling of blame felt towards the means of pain, similarly preceded by the remembrance of pain, on the part of one who has known it. This is expressed in the two aphorisms, "Desire is what dwells on pleasure;" "Aversion is what dwells on pain" (ii. 7, 8).

Here a grammatical question may be raised, "Are we to consider this word anuśayin ('dwelling') as formed by the kṛit affix ṇini in the sense of 'what is habitual,' or the taddhita affix ini in the sense of matup? It cannot be the former, since the affix ṇini cannot be used after a root compounded with a preposition as anuśí; for, as the word supi has already occurred in the Sútra, iii. 2, 4, and has been exerting its influence in the following sútras, this word must have been introduced a second time in the Sútra, iii. 2, 78, supy ajátau ṇinis táchchhílye,[419] on purpose to exclude prepositions, as these have no case terminations; and even if we did strain a point to allow them, still it would follow by the Sútra, vii. 2, 115, acho ñṇiti,[420] that [255]the radical vowel must be subject to vṛiddhi, and so the word must be anuśáyin, in accordance with the analogy of such words as atiśáyin, &c. Nor is the latter view tenable (i.e., that it is the taddhita affix ini[421]), since ini is forbidden by the technical verse—

and the word anuśaya is clearly a kṛit formation as it ends with the affix ach[423] [which brings it under this prohibition, and so renders it insusceptible of the affix ini]. Consequently, the word anuśayin in the Yoga aphorism is one the formation of which it is very hard to justify."[424] This cavil, however, is not to be admitted; since the rule is only to be understood as applying generally, not absolutely, as it does not refer to something of essential importance. Hence the author of the Vṛitti has said—

Therefore, sometimes the prohibited cases are found, as káryin, káryika [where the affixes are added after a kṛit formation], taṇḍulin, taṇḍulika [where they are added after a word meaning "genus"]. Hence the prohibition is only general, not absolute, after kṛit formations and words meaning "genus," and therefore the use of the affix ini is justified, although the word anuśaya is formed by a kṛit affix. This doubt therefore is settled.

[256]

The fifth "affliction," called "tenacity of mundane existence" (abhiniveśa), is what prevails in the case of all living beings, from the worm up to the philosopher, springing up daily, without any immediate cause, in the form of a dread, "May I not be separated from the body, things sensible, &c.," through the force of the impression left by the experience of the pain of the deaths which were suffered in previous lives, this is proved by universal experience, since every individual has the wish, "May I not cease to be," "May I be." This is declared in the aphorism, "Tenacity of mundane existence, flowing on through its own nature, is notorious even in the case of the philosopher" [ii. 9]. These five, "ignorance," &c., are well known as the "afflictions" (kleśa), since they afflict the soul, as bringing upon it various mundane troubles.

[We next describe the karmáśaya of ii. 12, the "stock of works" or "merits" in the mind.] "Works" (karman) consist of enjoined or forbidden actions, as the jyotishṭoma sacrifice, bráhmanicide, &c. "Stock" (áśaya) is the balance of the fruits of previous works, which lie stored up in the mind in the form of "mental deposits" of merit or demerit, until they ripen in the individual soul's own experience as "rank," "years," and "enjoyment" [ii. 13].

Now "concentration" [yoga] consists [by i. 2] in "the suppression of the modifications of the thinking principle," which stops the operation of the "afflictions," &c.; and this "suppression" is not considered to be merely the non-existence of the modifications [i.e., a mere negation], because, if it were a mere negation, it could not produce positive impressions on the mind; but it is rather the site of this non-existence,[426]—a particular state of the thinking principle, called by the four names [which will be fully described hereafter], madhumatí, madhupratíká, viśoká, and saṃskáraśeshatá. The word nirodha thus corresponds to its etymological explanation as "that in which the modifications of the thinking principle, right notion, misconception, [257]&c., are suppressed (nirudhyante). This suppression of the modifications is produced by "exercise" and "dispassion" [i. 12]. "Exercise is the repeated effort that the internal organ shall remain in its proper state" [i. 13]. This "remaining in its proper state" is a particular kind of development, whereby the thinking principle remains in its natural state, unaffected by those modifications which at different times assume the form of revealing, energising, and controlling.[427] "Exercise" is an effort directed to this, an endeavour again and again to reduce the internal organ to such a condition. The locative case, sthitau, in the aphorism is intended to express the object or aim, as in the well-known phrase, "He kills the elephant for its skin."[428] "Dispassion is the consciousness of having overcome desire in him who thirsts after neither the objects that are seen nor those that are heard of in revelation" [i. 15]. "Dispassion" is thus the reflection, "These objects are subject to me, not I to them," in one who feels no interest in the things of this world or the next, from perceiving the imperfections attached to them.

Now, in order to reduce the "afflictions" which hinder meditation and to attain meditation, the yogin must first direct his attention to practical concentration, and "exercise" and "dispassion" are of especial use in its attainment. This has been said by Kṛishṇa in the Bhagavad Gítá [vi. 3]—

Patañjali has thus defined the practical yoga: "Practical concentration is mortification, recitation of texts, and resignation to the Lord" [ii. 1]. Yájñavalkya has described "mortification"—

[258]

"Recitation of texts" is the repetition of the syllable Om, the gáyatrí, &c. Now these mantras are of two kinds, Vaidik and Tántrik. The Vaidik are also of two kinds, those chanted and those not chanted. Those chanted are the sámans; those not chanted are either in metre, i.e., the ṛichas, or in prose, i.e., the yajúṃshi, as has been said by Jaimini,[430] "Of these, that is a ṛich in which by the force of the sense there is a definite division into pádas [or portions of a verse]; the name sáman is applied to chanted portions; the word yajus is applied to the rest." Those mantras are called Tántrik which are set forth in sacred books that are directed to topics of voluntary devotion;[431] and these are again threefold, as female, male, and neuter; as it has been said—

They are called "all-powerful" (siddha) because they counteract all defects in their performance, and produce their effect even when the ordinary consecrating ceremonies, as bathing, &c., have been omitted.

Now the peculiar "consecrating ceremonies" (saṃskára) are ten, and they have been thus described in the Śáradá-tilaka—

But enough of this venturing to make public the tantra mysteries connected with mantras, which has suddenly led us astray like an unexpected Bacchanalian dance.[436]

The third form of practical yoga, "resignation to the Lord" (íśvara-praṇidhána), is the consigning all one's works, whether mentioned or not, without regard to fruit, to the Supreme Lord, the Supremely Venerable. As it has been said—

This self-resignation is also sometimes defined as "the surrender of the fruits of one's actions," and is thus a peculiar kind of faith, since most men act only with a selfish regard to the fruit. Thus it is sung in the Bhagavad Gítá [ii. 47]—

The harmfulness of aiming at the fruit of an action has been declared by the venerable Nílakaṇṭha-bháratí—

[261]

Now this prescribed practice of mortification, recitation, and resignation is itself called yoga, because it is a means for producing yoga, this being an instance of the function of words called "superimponent pure Indication," as in the well-known example, "Butter is longevity." "Indication" is the establishing of another meaning of a word from the incompatibility of its principal meaning with the rest of the sentence, and from the connection of this new meaning with the former; it is twofold, as founded on notoriety or on a motive. This has been declared in the Kávya-prakáśa [ii. 9]—

Now the word "this" [i.e., tat in the neuter, which the neuter yat in the extract would have naturally led us to expect instead of the feminine sá] would have signified some neuter word, like "implying," which is involved as a subordinate part of the verb "is indicated." But sá is used in the feminine [by attraction to agree with lakshaṇá], "this is indication," i.e., the neuter "this" is put in the feminine through its dependence on the predicate. This has been explained by Kaiyaṭa, "Of those pronouns which imply the identity of the subject and the predicate, the former takes the gender of the former, the latter of the latter."[437] Now "expert (kuśala) in business" is an example of Indication from notoriety; for the word kuśala, which is [262]significant in its parts by being analysed etymologically as kuśaṃ + láti, "one who gathers kuśa grass for the sacrifice," is here employed to mean "expert" through the relation of a similarity in character, as both are persons of discernment; and this does not need a motive any more than Denotation does, since each is the using a word in its recognised conventional sense in accordance with the immemorial tradition of the elders. Hence it has been said—

Therefore indication based on notoriety has no regard to any motive. Although a word, when it is employed, first establishes its principal meaning, and then by that meaning a second meaning is subsequently indicated, and so indication belongs properly to the principal meaning and not to the word; still, since it is superadded to the word which originally established the primary meaning, it is called [improperly by metonymy] a function of the word. It was with a view to this that the author of the Kávya-prakáśa used the expression, "This is 'Indication,' the superadded function of the word." But the indication based on a motive is of six kinds: 1. inclusive indication,[438] as "the lances enter" [where we really mean "men with the lances"]; 2. indicative indication, as "the benches shout" [where the spectators are meant without the benches]; 3. qualified[439] superimponent indication, as "the man of the Panjáb is an ox" [here the object is not swallowed up in the simile]; 4. qualified introsusceptive indication, as "that ox" [here the man is swallowed up in the simile]; 5. pure superimponent indication, as "ghí is life;" 6. pure [263]introsusceptive indication, as "verily this is life." This has been all explained in the Kávya-prakáśa [ii. 10-12]. But enough of this churning of the depths of rhetorical discussions.

This yoga has been declared to have eight things ancillary to it (aṅga); these are the forbearances, religious observances, postures, suppression of the breath, restraint, attention, contemplation, and meditation [ii. 29]. Patañjali says, "Forbearance consists in not wishing to kill, veracity, not stealing, continence, not coveting" [ii. 30]. "Religious observances are purifications, contentment, mortification, recitation of texts, and resignation to the Lord" [ii. 32]; and these are described in the Vishṇu Puráṇa [vi. 7, 36-38]—

"A 'posture' is what is steady and pleasant" [ii. 46]; it is of ten kinds, as the padma, bhadra, víra, svastika, daṇḍaka, sopáśraya, paryaṅka, krauñchanishadana, ushṭranishadana, samasaṃsthána. Yájñavalkya has described each of them in the passage which commences—

[264]

The descriptions of the others must be sought in that work.—When this steadiness of posture has been attained, "regulation of the breath" is practised, and this consists in "a cutting short of the motion of inspiration and expiration" [ii. 49]. Inspiration is the drawing in of the external air; expiration is the expelling of the air within the body; and "regulation of the breath" is the cessation of activity in both movements. "But [it may be objected] this cannot be accepted as a general definition of 'regulation of breath,' since it fails to apply to the special kinds, as rechaka, púraka, and kumbhaka." We reply that there is here no fault in the definition, since the "cutting short of the motion of inspiration and expiration" is found in all these special kinds. Thus rechaka, which is the expulsion of the air within the body, is only that regulation of the breath, which has been mentioned before as "expiration;" and púraka, which is the [regulated] retention of the external air within the body, is the "inspiration;" and kumbhaka is the internal suspension of breathing, when the vital air, called práṇa, remains motionless like water in a jar (kumbha). Thus the "cutting short of the motion of inspiration and expiration" applies to all, and consequently the objector's doubt is needless.

Now this air, beginning from sunrise, remains two ghaṭikás and a half[440] in each artery[441] (náḍi), like the revolving buckets on a waterwheel.[442] Thus in the course of a day and night there are produced 21,600 inspirations [265]and expirations. Hence it has been said by those who know the secret of transmitting the mantras, concerning the transmission of the ajapámantra[443]—

So at the time of the passing of the air through the arteries, the elements, earth, &c., must be understood, according to their different colours, by those who wish to obtain the highest good. This has been thus explained by the wise—

When the element air is thus comprehended and its restraint is accomplished, the evil influence of works which concealed discriminating knowledge is destroyed [ii. 52]; hence it has been said—

And again—

Now in this way, having his mind purified by the "forbearances" and the other things subservient to concentration, the devotee is to attain "self-mastery" (saṃyama)[452] and "restraint" (pratyáhára). "Restraint" is the accommodation of the senses, as the eye, &c., to the nature of the mind,[453] which is intent on the soul's unaltered nature, while they abandon all concernment with their own several objects, which might excite desire or anger or stupid indifference. This is expressed by the etymology of the word; the senses are drawn to it (á + hṛi), away from them (pratípa).

"But is it not the mind which is then intent upon the soul and not the senses, since these are only adapted for external objects, and therefore have no power for this supposed action? How, therefore, could they be accommodated [268]to the nature of the mind?" What you say is quite true; and therefore the author of the aphorisms, having an eye to their want of power for this, introduced the words "as it were," to express "resemblance." "Restraint is, as it were, the accommodation of the senses to the nature of the mind in the absence of concernment with each one's own object" [ii. 54]. Their absence of concernment with their several objects for the sake of being accommodated to the nature of the mind is this "resemblance" which we mean. Since, when the mind is restrained, the eye, &c., are restrained, no fresh effort is to be expected from them, and they follow the mind as bees follow their king. This has been declared in the Vishṇu-puráṇa [vi. 7, 43, 44]—

"Attention" (dháraṇá) is the fixing the mind, by withdrawing it from all other objects, on some place, whether connected with the internal self, as the circle of the navel, the lotus of the heart, the top of the sushumṇá artery, &c., or something external, as Prajápati, Vásava, Hiraṇyagarbha, &c. This is declared by the aphorism, "'Attention' is the fixing the mind on a place" [iii. 1]; and so, too, say the followers of the Puráṇas—

[269]

The continual flow of thought in this place, resting on the object to be contemplated, and avoiding all incongruous thoughts, is "contemplation" (dhyána); thus it is said, "A course of uniform thought there, is 'contemplation'" [iii. 2]. Others also have said—

We incidentally, in elucidating something else, discussed the remaining eighth ancillary thing, "meditation" (samádhi, see p. 243). By this practice of the ancillary means of yoga, pursued for a long time with uninterrupted earnestness, the "afflictions" which hinder meditation are abolished, and through "exercise" and "dispassion" the devotee attains to the perfections designated by the names Madhumatí and the rest.

"But why do you needlessly frighten us with unknown and monstrous words from the dialects of Karṇáṭa, Gauḍa,[456] and Láṭa?"[457] We do not want to frighten you, but rather to gratify you by explaining the meaning of these strange words; therefore let the reader who is so needlessly alarmed listen to us with attention.

i. The Madhumatí perfection,—this is the perfection of meditation, called "the knowledge which holds to the truth," consisting in the illumination of unsullied purity by means of the contemplation of "goodness," composed of the manifestation of joy, with every trace of "passion" or "darkness" abolished by "exercise," "dispassion," &c. Thus it is said in the aphorisms, "In that case there is the knowledge which holds to the truth" [i. 48]. It holds "to the truth," i.e., to the real; it is never overshadowed by error. "In that case," i.e., when firmly established, there arises this knowledge to the second yogin. For the yogins [270]or devotees to the practice of yoga are well known to be of four kinds, viz.,—

i. The práthamakalpika, in whom the light has just entered,[458] but, as it has been said, "he has not won the light which consists in the power of knowing another's thoughts, &c.;" 2. The madhubhúmika, who possesses the knowledge which holds to the truth; 3. The prajñájyotis, who has subdued the elements and the senses; 4. The atikránta-bhávaníya, who has attained the highest dispassion.

ii. The Madhupratíká perfections are swiftness like thought, &c. These are declared to be "swiftness like thought, the being without organs, and the conquest of nature" [iii. 49]. "Swiftness like thought" is the attainment by the body of exceeding swiftness of motion, like thought; "the being without bodily organs"[459] is the attainment by the senses, irrespective of the body, of powers directed to objects in any desired place or time; "the conquest of nature" is the power of controlling all the manifestations of nature. These perfections appear to the full in the third kind of yogin, from the subjugation by him of the five senses and their essential conditions.[460] These perfections are severally sweet, each one by itself, as even a particle of honey is sweet, and therefore the second state is called Madhupratíká [i.e., that whose parts are sweet].

iii. The Viśoká perfection consists in the supremacy over all existences, &c. This is said in the aphorisms, "To him who possesses, to the exclusion of all other ideas, the discriminative knowledge of the quality of goodness and the soul, arises omniscience and the supremacy over all existences" [iii. 50]. The "supremacy over all existences" is the overcoming like a master all entities, as these are but the developments of the quality of "goodness" in the mind [the other qualities of "passion" and [271]"darkness" being already abolished], and exist only in the form of energy and the objects to be energised upon.[461] The discriminative knowledge of them, as existing in the modes "subsided," "emerged," or "not to be named,"[462] is "omniscience." This is said in the aphorisms [i. 36], "Or a luminous immediate cognition, free from sorrow[463] [may produce steadiness of mind]."

iv. The Saṃskáraśeshatá state is also called asaṃprajñáta, i.e., "that meditation in which distinct recognition of an object is lost;" it is that meditation "without a seed" [i.e., without any object] which is able to stop the "afflictions" that produce fruits to be afterwards experienced in the shape of rank, length of life, and enjoyment; and this meditation belongs to him who, in the cessation of all modifications of the internal organ, has reached the highest "dispassion." "The other kind of meditation [i.e., that in which distinct recognition of an object is lost] is preceded by that exercise of thought which produces the entire cessation of modifications; it has nothing left but the latent impressions" [of thought after the departure of all objects] [i.e., saṃskáraśesha, i. 18]. Thus this foremost of men, being utterly passionless towards everything, finds that the seeds of the "afflictions," like burned rice-grains, are bereft of the power to germinate, and they are abolished together with the internal organ. When these are destroyed, there ensues, through the full maturity of his unclouded "discriminative knowledge," an absorption of all causes and effects into the primal prakṛiti; and the soul, which is the power of pure intelligence, abiding in its own real nature, and escaped from all connection with the phenomenal understanding (buddhi), or with existence, reaches "absolute isolation" (kaivalya). Final liberation is described by Patañjali as two perfections: "Absolute isolation is the repressive absorption[464] of the 'qualities' which have consummated [272]the ends of the soul, i.e., enjoyment and liberation, or the abiding of the power of intelligence in its own nature" [iv. 33]. Nor should any one object, "Why, however, should not the individual be born again even though this should have been attained?" for that is settled by the well-known principle that "with the cessation of the cause the effect ceases," and therefore this objection is utterly irrelevant, as admitting neither inquiry nor decision; for otherwise, if the effect could arise even in the absence of the cause, we should have blind men finding jewels, and such like absurdities; and the popular proverb for the impossible would become a possibility. And so, too, says the Śruti, "A blind man found a jewel; one without fingers seized it; one without a neck put it on; and a dumb man praised it."[465]

Thus we see that, like the authoritative treatises on medicine, the Yoga-śástra consists of four divisions; as those on medicine treat of disease, its cause, health, and medicine, so the Yoga-śástra also treats of phenomenal existence, its cause, liberation, and its cause. This existence of ours, full of pain, is what is to be escaped from; the connection of nature and the soul is the cause of our having to experience this existence; the absolute abolition of this connection is the escape; and right insight is the cause thereof.[466] The same fourfold division is to be similarly traced as the case may be in other Śástras also. Thus all has been made clear.

[273]

The system of Śaṅkara, which comes next in succession, and which is the crest-gem of all systems, has been explained by us elsewhere; it is therefore left untouched here.[467]

E. B. C.

NOTE ON THE YOGA.

There is an interesting description of the Yogins on the Mountain Raivataka in Mágha (iv. 55):—

"There the votaries of meditation, well skilled in benevolence (maitrí) and those other purifiers of the mind,—having successfully abolished the 'afflictions' and obtained the 'meditation possessed of a seed,' and having reached that knowledge which recognises the essential difference between the quality Goodness and the Soul,—desire yet further to repress even this ultimate meditation."

It is curious to notice that maitrí, which plays such a prominent part in Buddhism, is counted in the Yoga as only a preliminary condition from which the votary is to take, as it were, his first start towards his final goal. It is called a parikarman (= prasádhaka) in Vyása's Comm. i. 33 (cf. iii. 22), whence the term is borrowed by Mágha. Bhoja expressly says that this purifying process is an external one, and not an intimate portion of yoga itself; just as in arithmetic the operations of addition, &c., are valuable, not in themselves, but as aids in effecting the more important calculations which arise subsequently. The Yoga seems directly to allude to Buddhism in this marked depreciation of its cardinal virtue.

NOTE ON P. 237, LAST LINE.

For the word vyákopa in the original here (see also p. 242, l. 3 infra), cf. Kusumáñjali, p. 6, l. 7.