THE KAPILA AND THE PÂTAÑJALA SAMKHYA (YOGA) 1

Such an advance had however already begun in the Upanishads which had anticipated the new systems in all these directions. The pioneers of these new systems probably drew their suggestions both from the sacrificial creed and from the Upanisads, and built their systems independently by their own rational thinking. But if the suggestions of the Upanisads were thus utilized by heretics who denied the authority of the Vedas, it was natural to expect that we should find in the Hindu camp such germs of rational thinking as might indicate an attempt to harmonize the suggestions of the Upanisads and of the sacrificial creed in such a manner as might lead to the construction of a consistent and well-worked system of thought. Our expectations are indeed fulfilled in the Sâmkhya philosophy, germs of which may be discovered in the Upanisads.

The Germs of Sâmkhya in the Upanisads.

It is indeed true that in the Upanisads there is a large number of texts that describe the ultimate reality as the Brahman, the infinite, knowledge, bliss, and speak of all else as mere changing forms and names. The word Brahman originally meant in the earliest Vedic literature, _mantra_, duly performed sacrifice, and also the power of sacrifice which could bring about the desired result [Footnote ref 4]. In many passages of the Upanisads this Brahman appears as the universal and supreme principle from which all others derived their powers. Such a Brahman is sought for in many passages for personal gain or welfare. But through a gradual process of development the conception of Brahman reached a superior level in which the reality and truth of the world are tacitly ignored, and the One, the infinite, knowledge, the real is regarded as the only Truth. This type of thought gradually developed into the monistic Vedanta as explained by S'ankara. But there was another line of thought which was developing alongside of it, which regarded the world as having a reality and as being made up of water, fire, and earth. There are also passages in S'vetas'vatara and particularly in Maitrâyanî from which it appears that the Sâmkhya line of thought had considerably developed, and many of its technical terms were already in use [Footnote ref 5]. But the date of Maitrâyanî has not yet been definitely settled, and the details found there are also not such that we can form a distinct notion of the Sâmkhya thought as it developed in the Upanisads. It is not improbable that at this stage of development it also gave some suggestions to Buddhism or Jainism, but the Sâmkhya-Yoga philosophy as we now get it is a system in which are found all the results of Buddhism and Jainism in such a manner that it unites the doctrine of permanence of the Upanisads with the doctrine of momentariness of the Buddhists and the doctrine of relativism of the Jains.

Sâmkhya and Yoga Literature.

The main exposition of the system of Sâmkhya and Yoga in this section has been based on the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_, the _Sâmkhya sûtras_, and the _Yoga sûtras_ of Patañjali with their commentaries and sub-commentaries. The _Sâmkhya kârikâ_ (about 200 A.D.) was written by Îs'varakrsna. The account of Sâmkhya given by Caraka (78 A.D.) represents probably an earlier school and this has been treated separately. Vâcaspati Mis'ra (ninth century A.D.) wrote a commentary on it known as _Tattvakaumudî_. But before him Gaudapâda and Râjâ wrote commentaries on the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_ [Footnote ref 6]. Nârâyanatîrtha wrote his _Candrikâ_ on Gaudapâda's commentary. The _Sâmkhya sûtras_ which have been commented on by Vijñâna Bhiksu (called _Pravacanabhâsya_) of the sixteenth century seems to be a work of some unknown author after the ninth century. Aniruddha of the latter half of the fifteenth century was the first man to write a commentary on the _Sâmkhya sûtras_. Vijñâna Bhiksu wrote also another elementary work on Sâmkhya known as _Sâmkhyasâra_. Another short work of late origin is _Tattvasamâsa_ (probably fourteenth century). Two other works on Sâmkhya, viz Sîmânanda's _Sâmkhyatattvavivecana_ and Bhâvâganes'a's _Sâmkhyatattvayâthârthyadîpana_ (both later than Vijñânabhiksu) of real philosophical value have also been freely consulted. Patañjali's _Yoga sûtra_ (not earlier than 147 B.C.) was commented on by Vâysa (400 A.D.) and Vyâsa's bhâsya commented on by Vâcaspati Mis'ra is called _Tattvavais'âradî_, by Vijñâna Bhiksu _Yogavârttika_, by Bhoja in the tenth century _Bhojavrtti_, and by Nâges'a (seventeenth century) _Châyâvyâkhyâ_.

Amongst the modern works to which I owe an obligation I may mention the two treatises _Mechanical, physical and chemical theories of the Ancient Hindus and the Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus_ by Dr B.N. Seal and my two works on Yoga _Study of Patanjali_ published by the Calcutta University, and _Yoga Philosophy in relation to other Indian Systems of Thought_ which is shortly to be published, and my _Natural Philosophy of the Ancient Hindus_, awaiting publication with the Calcutta University.

Gunaratna mentions two other authoritative Sâmkhya works, viz. _Mâtharabhâsya_ and _Âtreyatantra_. Of these the second is probably the same as Caraka's treatment of Sâmkhya, for we know that the sage Atri is the speaker in Caraka's work and for that it was called Âtreyasamhitâ or Âtreyatantra. Nothing is known of the Mâtharabhâsya [Footnote ref 7].

An Early School of Sâmkhya.

It is important for the history of Sâmkhya philosophy that Caraka's treatment of it, which so far as I know has never been dealt with in any of the modern studies of Sâmkhya, should be brought before the notice of the students of this philosophy. According to Caraka there are six elements (_dhâtus_), viz. the five elements such as âkâs'a, vâyu etc. and cetanâ, called also purusa. From other points of view, the categories may be said to be twenty-four only, viz. the ten senses (five cognitive and five conative), manas, the five objects of senses and the eightfold prakrti (prakrti, mahat, ahamkâra and the five elements)[Footnote ref 8]. The manas works through the senses. It is atomic and its existence is proved by the fact that in spite of the existence of the senses there cannot be any knowledge unless manas is in touch with them. There are two movements of manas as indeterminate sensing (_ûha_) and conceiving (_vicâra_) before definite understanding (_buddhi_) arises. Each of the five senses is the product of the combination of five elements but the auditory sense is made with a preponderance of akasa, the sense of touch with a preponderance of air, the visual sense with a preponderance of light, the taste with a preponderance of water and the sense of smell with a preponderance of earth. Caraka does not mention the tanmâtras at all [Footnote ref 9]. The conglomeration of the sense-objects (_indriyârtha_) or gross matter, the ten senses, manas, the five subtle bhûtas and prakrti, mahat and ahamkâra taking place through rajas make up what we call man. When the sattva is at its height this conglomeration ceases. All karma, the fruit of karma, cognition, pleasure, pain, ignorance, life and death belongs to this conglomeration. But there is also the purusa, for had it not been so there would be no birth, death, bondage, or salvation. If the âtman were not regarded as cause, all illuminations of cognition would be without any reason. If a permanent self were not recognized, then for the work of one others would be responsible. This purusa, called also _paramâtman_, is beginningless and it has no cause beyond itself. The self is in itself without consciousness. Consciousness can only come to it through its connection with the sense organs and manas. By ignorance, will, antipathy, and work, this conglomeration of purusa and the other elements takes place. Knowledge, feeling, or action, cannot be produced without this combination. All positive effects are due to conglomerations of causes and not by a single cause, but all destruction comes naturally and without cause. That which is eternal is never the product of anything. Caraka identifies the avyakta part of prakrti with purusa as forming one category. The vikâra or evolutionary products of prakrti are called ksetra, whereas the avyakta part of prakrti is regarded as the ksetrajña (_avyaktamasya ksetrasya ksetrajñamrsayo viduh_). This avyakta and cetanâ are one and the same entity. From this unmanifested prakrti or cetanâ is derived the buddhi, and from the buddhi is derived the ego (_ahamkâra_) and from the ahamkâra the five elements and the senses are produced, and when this production is complete, we say that creation has taken place. 

At the time of pralaya (periodical cosmic dissolution) all the evolutes return back to prakrti, and thus become unmanifest with it, whereas at the time of a new creation from the purusa the unmanifest (_avyakta_), all the manifested forms--the evolutes of buddhi, ahamkâra, etc.--appear [Footnote ref 10]. This cycle of births or rebirths or of dissolution and new creation acts through the influence of rajas and tamas, and so those who can get rid of these two will never again suffer this revolution in a cycle. The manas can only become active in association with the self, which is the real agent. This self of itself takes rebirth in all kinds of lives according to its own wish, undetermined by anyone else. It works according to its own free will and reaps the fruits of its karma. Though all the souls are pervasive, yet they can only perceive in particular bodies where they are associated with their own specific senses. All pleasures and pains are felt by the conglomeration (_râs'i_), and not by the âtman presiding over it. From the enjoyment and suffering of pleasure and pain comes desire (_trsnâ_) consisting of wish and antipathy, and from desire again comes pleasure and pain. Moksa means complete cessation of pleasure and pain, arising through the association of the self with the manas, the sense, and sense-objects. If the manas is settled steadily in the self, it is the state of yoga when there is neither pleasure nor pain. When true knowledge dawns that "all are produced by causes, are transitory, rise of themselves, but are not produced by the self and are sorrow, and do not belong to me the self," the self transcends all. This is the last renunciation when all affections and knowledge become finally extinct. There remains no indication of any positive existence of the self at this time, and the self can no longer be perceived [Footnote ref 11]. It is the state of Brahman. Those who know Brahman call this state the Brahman, which is eternal and absolutely devoid of any characteristic. This state is spoken of by the Sâmkhyas as their goal, and also that of the Yogins. When rajas and tamas are rooted out and the karma of the past whose fruits have to be enjoyed are exhausted, and there is no new karma and new birth, the state of moksa comes about. Various kinds of moral endeavours in the shape of association with good people, abandoning of desires, determined attempts at discovering the truth with fixed attention, are spoken of as indispensable means. Truth (tattva) thus discovered should be recalled again and again [Footnote ref 12] and this will ultimately effect the disunion of the body with the self. As the self is avyakta (unmanifested) and has no specific nature or character, this state can only be described as absolute cessation (_mokse nivrttirnihs'esâ_).

The main features of the Sâmkhya doctrine as given by Caraka are thus: 1. Purusa is the state of avyakta. 2. By a conglomera of this avyakta with its later products a conglomeration is formed which generates the so-called living being. 3. The tanmâtras are not mentioned. 4. Rajas and tamas represent the bad states of the mind and sattva the good ones. 5. The ultimate state of emancipation is either absolute annihilation or characterless absolute existence and it is spoken of as the Brahman state; there is no consciousness in this state, for consciousness is due to the conglomeration of the self with its evolutes, buddhi, ahamkâra etc. 6. The senses are formed of matter (_bhautika_).

This account of Sâmkhya agrees with the system of Sâmkhya propounded by Pañcas'ikha (who is said to be the direct pupil of Âsuri the pupil of Kapila, the founder of the system) in the Mahâbhârata XII. 219. Pañcas'ikha of course does not describe the system as elaborately as Caraka does. But even from what little he says it may be supposed that the system of Sâmkhya he sketches is the same as that of Caraka [Footnote ref 13]. Pañcas'ikha speaks of the ultimate truth as being avyakta (a term applied in all Sâmkhya literature to prakrti) in the state of purusa (_purusâvasthamavyaktam_). If man is the product of a mere combination of the different elements, then one may assume that all ceases with death. Caraka in answer to such an objection introduces a discussion, in which he tries to establish the existence of a self as the postulate of all our duties and sense of moral responsibility. The same discussion occurs in Pañcas'ikha also, and the proofs for the existence of the self are also the same. Like Caraka again Pañcas'ikha also says that all consciousness is due to the conditions of the conglomeration of our physical body mind,--and the element of "cetas." They are mutually independent, and by such independence carry on the process of life and work. None of the phenomena produced by such a conglomeration are self. All our suffering comes in because we think these to be the self. Moksa is realized when we can practise absolute renunciation of these phenomena. The gunas described by Pañcas'ikha are the different kinds of good and bad qualities of the mind as Caraka has it. The state of the conglomeration is spoken of as the ksetra, as Caraka says, and there is no annihilation or eternality; and the last state is described as being like that when all rivers lose themselves in the ocean and it is called alinga (without any characteristic)--a term reserved for prakrti in later Sâmkhya. This state is attainable by the doctrine of ultimate renunciation which is also called the doctrine of complete destruction (_samyagbadha_).

Gunaratna (fourteenth century A.D.), a commentator of _Saddars'anasamuccaya_, mentions two schools of Sâmkhya, the Maulikya (original) and the Uttara or (later) [Footnote ref 14]. Of these the doctrine of the Maulikya Sâmkhya is said to be that which believed that there was a separate pradhâna for each âtman (_maulikyasâmkhyâ hyâtmânamâtmânam prati prthak pradhânam vadanti_). This seems to be a reference to the Sâmkhya doctrine I have just sketched. I am therefore disposed to think that this represents the earliest systematic doctrine of Sâmkhya.

In _Mahâbhârata_ XII. 318 three schools of Sâmkhya are mentioned, viz. those who admitted twenty-four categories (the school I have sketched above), those who admitted twenty-five (the well-known orthodox Sâmkhya system) and those who admitted twenty-six categories. This last school admitted a supreme being in addition to purusa and this was the twenty-sixth principle. This agrees with the orthodox Yoga system and the form of Sâmkhya advocated in the _Mahâbhârata_. The schools of Sâmkhya of twenty-four and twenty-five categories are here denounced as unsatisfactory. Doctrines similar to the school of Sâmkhya we have sketched above are referred to in some of the other chapters of the _Mahâbhârata_ (XII. 203, 204). The self apart from the body is described as the moon of the new moon day; it is said that as Râhu (the shadow on the sun during an eclipse) cannot be seen apart from the sun, so the self cannot be seen apart from the body. The selfs (_s'arîrinah_) are spoken of as manifesting from prakrti.

We do not know anything about Âsuri the direct disciple of Kapila [Footnote ref 15]. But it seems probable that the system of Sâmkhya we have sketched here which appears in fundamentally the same form in the _Mahâbhârata_ and has been attributed there to Pañcas'ikha is probably the earliest form of Sâmkhya available to us in a systematic form. Not only does Gunaratna's reference to the school of Maulikya Sâmkhya justify it, but the fact that Caraka (78 A.U.) does not refer to the Sâmkhya as described by Îs'varakrsna and referred to in other parts of _Mahâbhârata_ is a definite proof that Îs'varakrsna's Sâmkhya is a later modification, which was either non-existent in Caraka's time or was not regarded as an authoritative old Sâmkhya view.

Wassilief says quoting Tibetan sources that Vindhyavâsin altered the Sâmkhya according to his own views [Footnote ref 16]. Takakusu thinks that Vindhyavâsin was a title of Îs'varakrsna [Footnote ref 17] and Garbe holds that the date of Îs'varakrsna was about 100 A.D. It seems to be a very plausible view that Îs'varakrsna was indebted for his kârikâs to another work, which was probably written in a style different from what he employs. The seventh verse of his _Kârikâ_ seems to be in purport the same as a passage which is found quoted in the _Mahâbhâsya_ of Patañjali the grammarian (147 B.C.) [Footnote ref 18]. The subject of the two passages are the enumeration of reasons which frustrate visual perception. This however is not a doctrine concerned with the strictly technical part of Sâmkhya, and it is just possible that the book from which Patañjali quoted the passage, and which was probably paraphrased in the Âryâ metre by Îs'varakrsna was not a Sâmkhya book at all. But though the subject of the verse is not one of the strictly technical parts of Sâmkhya, yet since such an enumeration is not seen in any other system of Indian philosophy, and as it has some special bearing as a safeguard against certain objections against the Sâmkhya doctrine of prakrti, the natural and plausible supposition is that it was the verse of a Sâmkhya book which was paraphrased by Îs'varakrsna.

The earliest descriptions of a Sâmkhya which agrees with Îs'varakrsna's Sâmkhya (but with an addition of Îs'vara) are to be found in Patañjali's _Yoga sûtras_ and in the _Mahâbhârata;_ but we are pretty certain that the Sâmkhya of Caraka we have sketched here was known to Patañjali, for in _Yoga sûtra_ I. 19 a reference is made to a view of Sâmkhya similar to this.

From the point of view of history of philosophy the Sâmkhya of Caraka and Pañcas'ikha is very important; for it shows a transitional stage of thought between the Upanisad ideas and the orthodox Sâmkhya doctrine as represented by Îs'varakrsna. On the one hand its doctrine that the senses are material, and that effects are produced only as a result of collocations, and that the purusa is unconscious, brings it in close relation with Nyâya, and on the other its connections with Buddhism seem to be nearer than the orthodox Sâmkhya.

We hear of a _Sastitantras'âstra_ as being one of the oldest Sâmkhya works. This is described in the _Ahirbudhnya Samhitâ_ as containing two books of thirty-two and twenty-eight chapters [Footnote ref 19]. A quotation from _Râjavârttika_ (a work about which there is no definite information) in Vâcaspati Mis'ra's commentary on the Sâmkhya kârika_(72) says that it was called the _Sastitantra because it dealt with the existence of prakrti, its oneness, its difference from purusas, its purposefulness for purusas, the multiplicity of purusas, connection and separation from purusas, the evolution of the categories, the inactivity of the purusas and the five _viparyyayas_, nine tustis, the defects of organs of twenty-eight kinds, and the eight siddhis [Footnote ref 20].

But the content of the _Sastitantra_ as given in _Ahirbudhnya Samhitâ_ is different from it, and it appears from it that the Sâmkhya of the _Sastitantra_ referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Samhitâ_ was of a theistic character resembling the doctrine of the Pañcarâtra Vaisnavas and the _Ahirbudhnya Samhitâ_ says that Kapila's theory of Sâmkhya was a Vaisnava one. Vijñâna Bhiksu, the greatest expounder of Sâmkhya, says in many places of his work _Vijñânâmrta Bhâsya_ that Sâmkhya was originally theistic, and that the atheistic Sâmkhya is only a _praudhivâda_ (an exaggerated attempt to show that no supposition of Îs'vara is necessary to explain the world process) though the _Mahâbhârata_ points out that the difference between Sâmkhya and Yoga is this, that the former is atheistic, while the latter is theistic. The discrepancy between the two accounts of _Sastitantra_ suggests that the original _Sastitantra_ as referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Samhitâ_ was subsequently revised and considerably changed. This supposition is corroborated by the fact that Gunaratna does not mention among the important Sâmkhya works _Sastitantra_ but _Sastitantroddhâra_ (revised edition of _Sastitantra_) [Footnote ref 21]. Probably the earlier Sastitantra was lost even before Vâcaspati's time.

If we believe the Sastitantra referred to in the _Ahirbudhnya Samhitâ_ to be in all essential parts the same work which was composed by Kapila and based faithfully on his teachings, then it has to be assumed that Kapila's Sâmkhya was theistic [Footnote ref 22]. It seems probable that his disciple Âsuri tried to popularise it. But it seems that a great change occurred when Pañcas'ikha the disciple of Âsuri came to deal with it. For we know that his doctrine differed from the traditional one in many important respects. It is said in _Sâmkhya kârikâ_ (70) that the literature was divided by him into many parts (_tena bahudhâkrtam tantram_). The exact meaning of this reference is difficult to guess. It might mean that the original _Sastitantra_ was rewritten by him in various treatises. It is a well-known fact that most of the schools of Vaisnavas accepted the form of cosmology which is the same in most essential parts as the Sâmkhya cosmology. This justifies the assumption that Kapila's doctrine was probably theistic. But there are a few other points of difference between the Kapila and the Pâtañjala Sâmkhya (Yoga). The only supposition that may be ventured is that Pañcas'ikha probably modified Kapila's work in an atheistic way and passed it as Kapila's work. If this supposition is held reasonable, then we have three strata of Sâmkhya, first a theistic one, the details of which are lost, but which is kept in a modified form by the Pâtañjala school of Sâmkhya, second an atheistic one as represented by Pañcas'ikha, and a third atheistic modification as the orthodox Sâmkhya system. An important change in the Sâmkhya doctrine seems to have been introduced by Vijñâna Bhiksu (sixteenth century A.D.) by his treatment of gunas as types of reals. I have myself accepted this interpretation of Sâmkhya as the most rational and philosophical one, and have therefore followed it in giving a connected system of the accepted Kapila and the Pâtañjala school of Sâmkhya. But it must be pointed out that originally the notion of gunas was applied to different types of good and bad mental states, and then they were supposed in some mysterious way by mutual increase and decrease to form the objective world on the one hand and the totality of human psychosis on the other. A systematic explanation of the gunas was attempted in two different lines by Vijñâna Bhiksu and the Vaisnava writer Venkata [Footnote ref 23]. As the Yoga philosophy compiled by Patañjali and commented on by Vyâsa, Vâcaspati and Vijñana Bhiksu, agree with the Sâmkhya doctrine as explained by Vâcaspati and Vijñana Bhiksu in most points I have preferred to call them the Kapila and the Pâtañjala schools of Sâmkhya and have treated them together--a principle which was followed by Haribhadra in his _Saddars'anasamuaccaya_.

The other important Sâmkhya teachers mentioned by Gaudapâda are Sanaka, Sananda, Sanâtana and Vodhu. Nothing is known about their historicity or doctrines.

Sâmkhya kârikâ, Sâmkhya sûtra, Vâcaspati Mis'ra and Vijñâna Bhiksu.

A word of explanation is necessary as regards my interpretation of the Sâmkhya-Yoga system. The _Sâmkhya kârikâ_ is the oldest Sâmkhya text on which we have commentaries by later writers. The _Sâmkhya sûtra_ was not referred to by any writer until it was commented upon by Aniruddha (fifteenth century A.D.). Even Gunaratna of the fourteenth century A D. who made allusions to a number of Sâmkhya works, did not make any reference to the _Sâmkhya sûtra_, and no other writer who is known to have flourished before Gunaratna seems to have made any reference to the _Sâmkhya sûtra_. The natural conclusion therefore is that these sûtras were probably written some time after the fourteenth century. But there is no positive evidence to prove that it was so late a work as the fifteenth century. It is said at the end of the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_ of Îs'varakrsna that the kârikâs give an exposition of the Sâmkhya doctrine excluding the refutations of the doctrines of other people and excluding the parables attached to the original Sâmkhya works--the _Sastitantras'âstra_. The _Sâmkhya sûtras_ contain refutations of other doctrines and also a number of parables. It is not improbable that these were collected from some earlier Sâmkhya work which is now lost to us. It may be that it was done from some later edition of the _Sastitantras'âstra_ (_Sastitantroddhâra_ as mentioned by Gûnaratna), but this is a mere conjecture. There is no reason to suppose that the Sâmkhya doctrine found in the sûtras differs in any important way from the Sâmkhya doctrine as found in the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_. The only point of importance is this, that the _Sâmkhya sûtras_ hold that when the Upanisads spoke of one absolute pure intelligence they meant to speak of unity as involved in the class of intelligent purusas as distinct from the class of the gunas. As all purusas were of the nature of pure intelligence, they were spoken of in the Upanisads as one, for they all form the category or class of pure intelligence, and hence may in some sense be regarded as one. This compromise cannot be found in the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_. This is, however, a case of omission and not of difference. Vijñâna Bhiksu, the commentator of the _Sâmkhya sûtra_, was more inclined to theistic Sâmkhya or Yoga than to atheistic Sâmkhya. This is proved by his own remarks in his _Sâmkhyapravacanabhâsya, Yogavârttika_, and _Vijñânâmrtabhasya_ (an independent commentary on the Brahmasûtras of Bâdarâyana on theistic Sâmkhya lines). Vijñâna Bhiksu's own view could not properly be called a thorough Yoga view, for he agreed more with the views of the Sâmkhya doctrine of the Puranas, where both the diverse purusas and the prakrti are said to be merged in the end in Îs'vara, by whose will the creative process again began in the prakrti at the end of each pralaya. He could not avoid the distinctively atheistic arguments of the _Sâmkhya sûtras_, but he remarked that these were used only with a view to showing that the Sâmkhya system gave such a rational explanation that even without the intervention of an Îs'vara it could explain all facts. Vijñâna Bhiksu in his interpretation of Sâmkhya differed on many points from those of Vâcaspati, and it is difficult to say who is right. Vijñâna Bhiksu has this advantage that he has boldly tried to give interpretations on some difficult points on which Vâcaspati remained silent. I refer principally to the nature of the conception of the gunas, which I believe is the most important thing in Sâmkhya. Vijñâna Bhiksu described the gunas as reals or super-subtle substances, but Vâcaspati and Gaudapâda (the other commentator of the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_) remained silent on the point. There is nothing, however, in their interpretations which would militate against the interpretation of Vijñâna Bhiksu, but yet while they were silent as to any definite explanations regarding the nature of the gunas, Bhiksu definitely

224

came forward with a very satisfactory and rational interpretation of their nature.

Since no definite explanation of the gunas is found in any other work before Bhiksu, it is quite probable that this matter may not have been definitely worked out before. Neither Caraka nor the _Mahâbhârata_ explains the nature of the gunas. But Bhiksu's interpretation suits exceedingly well all that is known of the manifestations and the workings of the gunas in all early documents. I have therefore accepted the interpretation of Bhiksu in giving my account of the nature of the gunas. The _Kârikâ_ speaks of the gunas as being of the nature of pleasure, pain, and dullness (_sattva, rajas_ and _tamas_). It also describes sattva as being light and illuminating, rajas as of the nature of energy and causing motion, and tamas as heavy and obstructing. Vâcaspati merely paraphrases this statement of the _Kârikâ_ but does not enter into any further explanations. Bhiksu's interpretation fits in well with all that is known of the gunas, though it is quite possible that this view might not have been known before, and when the original Sâmkhya doctrine was formulated there was a real vagueness as to the conception of the gunas.

There are some other points in which Bhiksu's interpretation differs from that of Vâcaspati. The most important of these may be mentioned here. The first is the nature of the connection of the buddhi states with the purusa. Vâcaspati holds that there is no contact (_samyoga_) of any buddhi state with the purusa but that a reflection of the purusa is caught in the state of buddhi by virtue of which the buddhi state becomes intelligized and transformed into consciousness. But this view is open to the objection that it does not explain how the purusa can be said to be the experiencer of the conscious states of the buddhi, for its reflection in the buddhi is merely an image, and there cannot be an experience (_bhoga_) on the basis of that image alone without any actual connection of the purusa with the buddhi. The answer of Vâcaspati Mis'ra is that there is no contact of the two in space and time, but that their proximity (_sannidhi_) means only a specific kind of fitness (_yogyatâ_) by virtue of which the purusa, though it remains aloof, is yet felt to be united and identified in the buddhi, and as a result of that the states of the buddhi appear as ascribed to a person. Vijñâna Bhiksu differs from Vâcaspati and says that if such a special kind of fitness be admitted, then there is no

225

reason why purusa should be deprived of such a fitness at the time of emancipation, and thus there would be no emancipation at all, for the fitness being in the purusa, he could not be divested of it, and he would continue to enjoy the experiences represented in the buddhi for ever. Vijñana Bhiksu thus holds that there is a real contact of the purusa with the buddhi state in any cognitive state. Such a contact of the purusa and the buddhi does not necessarily mean that the former will be liable to change on account of it, for contact and change are not synonymous. Change means the rise of new qualities. It is the buddhi which suffers changes, and when these changes are reflected in the purusa, there is the notion of a person or experiencer in the purusa, and when the purusa is reflected back in the buddhi the buddhi state appears as a conscious state. The second, is the difference between Vâcaspati and Bhiksu as regards the nature of the perceptual process. Bhiksu thinks that the senses can directly perceive the determinate qualities of things without any intervention of manas, whereas Vâcaspati ascribes to manas the power of arranging the sense-data in a definite order and of making the indeterminate sense-data determinate. With him the first stage of cognition is the stage when indeterminate sense materials are first presented, at the next stage there is assimilation, differentiation, and association by which the indeterminate materials are ordered and classified by the activity of manas called samkalpa which coordinates the indeterminate sense materials into determinate perceptual and conceptual forms as class notions with particular characteristics. Bhiksu who supposes that the determinate character of things is directly perceived by the senses has necessarily to assign a subordinate position to manas as being only the faculty of desire, doubt, and imagination.

It may not be out of place to mention here that there are one or two passages in Vâcaspati's commentary on the _Sâmkhya kârikâ_ which seem to suggest that he considered the ego (_ahamkâra_) as producing the subjective series of the senses and the objective series of the external world by a sort of desire or will, but he did not work out this doctrine, and it is therefore not necessary to enlarge upon it. There is also a difference of view with regard to the evolution of the tanmâtras from the mahat; for contrary to the view of _Vyâsabhâsya_ and Vijñâna Bhiksu etc. Vâcaspati holds that from the mahat there was ahamkâra and from ahamkâra the tanmâtras [Footnote ref 24]. Vijñâna Bhiksu however holds that both the separation of ahamkâra and the evolution of the tanmâtras take place in the mahat, and as this appeared to me to be more reasonable, I have followed this interpretation. There are some other minor points of difference about the Yoga doctrines between Vâcaspati and Bhiksu which are not of much philosophical importance.

Yoga and Patañjali.

The word yoga occurs in the Rg-Veda in various senses such as yoking or harnessing, achieving the unachieved, connection, and the like. The sense of yoking is not so frequent as the other senses; but it is nevertheless true that the word was used in this sense in Rg-Veda and in such later Vedic works as the S'atapatha Brâhmana and the Brhadâranyaka Upanisad [Footnote ref 25]. The word has another derivative "yugya" in later Sanskrit literature [Footnote ref 26].

With the growth of religious and philosophical ideas in the Rg-Veda, we find that the religious austerities were generally very much valued. Tapas (asceticism) and brahmacarya (the holy vow of celibacy and life-long study) were regarded as greatest virtues and considered as being productive of the highest power [Footnote ref 27].

As these ideas of asceticism and self-control grew the force of the flying passions was felt to be as uncontrollable as that of a spirited steed, and thus the word yoga which was originally applied to the control of steeds began to be applied to the control of the senses [Footnote ref 28].

In Pânini's time the word yoga had attained its technical meaning, and he distinguished this root "_yuj samâdhau_" (_yuj_ in the sense of concentration) from "_yujir yoge_" (root _yujir_ in the sense of connecting). _Yuj_ in the first sense is seldom used as a verb. It is more or less an imaginary root for the etymological derivation of the word yoga [Footnote ref 29]. In the _Bhagavadgîtâ_, we find that the word yoga has been used not only in conformity with the root "_yuj-samâdhau_" but also with "_yujir yoge_" This has been the source of some confusion to the readers of the _Bhagavadgîtâ._ "Yogin" in the sense of a person who has lost himself in meditation is there regarded with extreme veneration. One of the main features of the use of this word lies in this that the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ tried to mark out a middle path between the austere discipline of meditative abstraction on the one hand and the course of duties of sacrificial action of a Vedic worshipper in the life of a new type of Yogin (evidently from _yujir yoge_) on the other, who should combine in himself the best parts of the two paths, devote himself to his duties, and yet abstract himself from all selfish motives associated with desires.

Kautilya in his _Arthas'âstra_ when enumerating the philosophic sciences of study names Sâmkhya, Yoga, and Lokâyata. The oldest Buddhist sûtras (e.g. the _Satipatthâna sutta_) are fully familiar with the stages of Yoga concentration. We may thus infer that self-concentration and Yoga had developed as a technical method of mystic absorption some time before the Buddha.

As regards the connection of Yoga with Sâmkhya, as we find it in the _Yoga sûtras_ of Patañjali, it is indeed difficult to come to any definite conclusion. The science of breath had attracted notice in many of the earlier Upanisads, though there had not probably developed any systematic form of prânâyâma (a system of breath control) of the Yoga system. It is only when we come to Maitrâyanî that we find that the Yoga method had attained a systematic development. The other two Upanisads in which the Yoga ideas can be traced are the S'vetâs'vatara and the Katha. It is indeed curious to notice that these three Upanisads of Krsna Yajurveda, where we find reference to Yoga methods, are the only ones where we find clear references also to the Sâmkhya tenets, though the Sâmkhya and Yoga ideas do not appear there as related to each other or associated as parts of the same system. But there is a remarkable passage in the Maitrâyanî in the conversation between S'âkyâyana and Brhad ratha where we find that the Sâmkhya metaphysics was offered

228

in some quarters to explain the validity of the Yoga processes, and it seems therefore that the association and grafting of the Sâmkhya metaphysics on the Yoga system as its basis, was the work of the followers of this school of ideas which was subsequently systematized by Patañjali. Thus S'âkyâyana says: "Here some say it is the guna which through the differences of nature goes into bondage to the will, and that deliverance takes place when the fault of the will has been removed, because he sees by the mind; and all that we call desire, imagination, doubt, belief, unbelief, certainty, uncertainty, shame, thought, fear, all that is but mind. Carried along by the waves of the qualities darkened in his imagination, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacillating he enters into belief, believing I am he, this is mine, and he binds his self by his self as a bird with a net. Therefore, a man being possessed of will, imagination and belief is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination and belief--this is the sign of liberty, this is the path that leads to Brahman, this is the opening of the door, and through it he will go to the other shore of darkness. All desires are there fulfilled. And for this, they quote a verse: 'When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state [Footnote ref 30].'"

An examination of such Yoga Upanisads as S'ândilya, Yogatattva, Dhyânabindu, Hamsa, Amrtanâda, Varâha, Mandala Brâhmana, Nâdabindu, and Yogakundalû, shows that the Yoga practices had undergone diverse changes in diverse schools, but none of these show any predilection for the Sâmkhya. Thus the Yoga practices grew in accordance with the doctrines of the S'aivas and S'aktas and assumed a peculiar form as the Mantrayoga; they grew in another direction as the Hathayoga which was supposed to produce mystic and magical feats through constant practices of elaborate nervous exercises, which were also associated with healing and other supernatural powers. The Yogatattva Upanisad says that there are four kinds of yoga, the Mantra Yoga, Laya Yoga, Hathayoga and Râjayoga [Footnote ref 31]. In some cases we find that there was a great attempt even to associate Vedântism with these mystic practices. The influence of these practices in the development of Tantra and other modes of worship was also very great, but we have to leave out these from our present consideration as they have little philosophic importance and as they are not connected with our present endeavour.

Of the Pâtañjala school of Sâmkhya, which forms the subject of the Yoga with which we are now dealing, Patañjali was probably the most notable person for he not only collected the different forms of Yoga practices, and gleaned the diverse ideas which were or could be associated with the Yoga, but grafted them all on the Sâmkhya metaphysics, and gave them the form in which they have been handed down to us. Vâcaspati and Vijñâna Bhiksu, the two great commentators on the _Vyâsabhâsya_, agree with us in holding that Patañjali was not the founder of Yoga, but an editor. Analytic study of the sûtras brings the conviction that the sûtras do not show any original attempt, but a masterly and systematic compilation which was also supplemented by fitting contributions. The systematic manner also in which the first three chapters are written by way of definition and classification shows that the materials were already in existence and that Patañjali systematized them. There was no missionizing zeal, no attempt to overthrow the doctrines of other systems, except as far as they might come in by way of explaining the system. Patañjal is not even anxious to establish the system, but he is only engaged in systematizing the facts as he had them. Most of the criticism against the Buddhists occur in the last chapter. The doctrines of the Yoga are described in the first three chapters, and this part is separated from the last chapter where the views of the Buddhist are criticized; the putting of an "_iti_" (the word to denote the conclusion of any work) at the end of the third chapter is evidently to denote the conclusion of his Yoga compilation. There is of course another "_iti_" at the end of the fourth chapter to denote the conclusion of the whole work. The most legitimate hypothesis seems to be that the last chapter is a subsequent addition by a hand other than that of Patañjali who was anxious to supply some new links of argument which were felt to be necessary for the strengthening of the Yoga position from an internal point of view, as well as for securing the strength of the Yoga from the supposed attacks of Buddhist metaphysics. There is also a marked change (due either to its supplementary character or to the manipulation of a foreign hand) in the style of the last chapter as compared with the style of the other three.

The sûtras, 30-34, of the last chapter seem to repeat what has already been said in the second chapter and some of the topics introduced are such that they could well have been dealt with in a more relevant manner in connection with similar discussions in the preceding chapters. The extent of this chapter is also disproportionately small, as it contains only 34 sûtras, whereas the average number of sûtras in other chapters is between 51 to 55.

We have now to meet the vexed question of the probable date of this famous Yoga author Patañjali. Weber had tried to connect him with Kâpya Patamchala of S'atapatha Brâhmana [Footnote ref 32]; in Kâtyâyana's _Varttika_ we get the name Patañjali which is explained by later commentators as _patantah añjalayah yasmai_ (for whom the hands are folded as a mark of reverence), but it is indeed difficult to come to any conclusion merely from the similarity of names. There is however another theory which identifies the writer of the great commentary on Pânini called the _Mahâbhâsya_ with the Patañjali of the _Yoga sûtra_. This theory has been accepted by many western scholars probably on the strength of some Indian commentators who identified the two Patañjalis. Of these one is the writer of the _Patañjalicarita_ (Râmabhadra Dîksîta) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in S'ivarâma's commentary on _Vâsavadattâ_ which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century. The other two are king Bhoja of Dhâr and Cakrapânidatta, the commentator of _Caraka,_ who belonged to the eleventh century A.D. Thus Cakrapâni says that he adores the Ahipati (mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his _Pâtañjala mahâbhâsya_ and the revision of _Caraka._ Bhoja says: "Victory be to the luminous words of that illustrious sovereign Ranaranigamalla who by composing his grammar, by writing his commentary on the Patañjala and by producing a treatise on medicine called _Râjamrgânka_ has like the lord of the holder of serpents removed defilement from speech, mind and body." The adoration hymn of Vyâsa (which is considered to be an interpolation even by orthodox scholars) is also based upon the same tradition. It is not impossible therefore that the later Indian commentators might have made some confusion between the three Patañjalis, the grammarian, the Yoga editor, and the medical writer to whom is ascribed the book known as _Pâtañjalatantra,_ and who has been quoted by S'ivadâsa in his commentary on _Cakradatta_ in connection with the heating of metals.

Professor J.H. Woods of Harvard University is therefore in a way justified in his unwillingness to identify the grammarian and the Yoga editor on the slender evidence of these commentators. It is indeed curious to notice that the great commentators of the grammar school such as Bhartrhari, Kaiyyata, Vâmana, Jayâditya, Nâges'a, etc. are silent on this point. This is indeed a point against the identification of the two Patañjalis by some Yoga and medical commentators of a later age. And if other proofs are available which go against such an identification, we could not think the grammarian and the Yoga writer to be the same person.

Let us now see if Patañjali's grammatical work contains anything which may lead us to think that he was not the same person as the writer on Yoga. Professor Woods supposes that the philosophic concept of substance (_dravya_) of the two Patañjalis differs and therefore they cannot be identified. He holds that dravya is described in _Vyâsabhâsya_ in one place as being the unity of species and qualities (_sâmânyavis'esâtmaka_), whereas the _Mahâbhâsya_ holds that a dravya denotes a genus and also specific qualities according as the emphasis or stress is laid on either side. I fail to see how these ideas are totally antagonistic. Moreover, we know that these two views were held by Vyâdi and Vâjapyâyana (Vyâdi holding that words denoted qualities or dravya and Vâjapyâyana holding that words denoted species [Footnote ref 33]). Even Pânini had these two different ideas in "_jâtyâkhyâyâmekasmin bahuvacanamanyatarasyâm_" and "_sarûpânamekas'esamekavibhaktau_," and Patañjali the writer of the _Mahâbhâsya_ only combined these two views. This does not show that he opposes the view of _Vyâsabhâsya_, though we must remember that even if he did, that would not prove anything with regard to the writer of the sûtras. Moreover, when we read that dravya is spoken of in the _Mahâbhâsya_ as that object which is the specific kind of the conglomeration of its parts, just as a cow is of its tail, hoofs, horns, etc.--"_yat sâsnâlângulakakudakhuravisânyartharûpam_," we are reminded of its similarity with "_ayutasiddhâvayavabhedânugatah samûhah dravyam_" (a conglomeration of interrelated parts is called dravya) in the _Vyâsabhâsya_. So far as I have examined the _Mahâbhâsya_ I have not been able to discover anything there which can warrant us in holding that the two Patañjalis cannot be identified. There are no doubt many apparent divergences of view, but even in these it is only the traditional views of the old grammarians that are exposed and reconciled, and it would be very unwarrantable for us to judge anything about the personal views of the grammarian from them. I am also convinced that the writer of the _Mahâbhâsya_ knew most of the important points of the Sâmkhya-Yoga metaphysics; as a few examples I may refer to the guna theory (1. 2. 64, 4. 1. 3), the Sâmkhya dictum of ex nihilo nihil fit (1. 1. 56), the ideas of time (2. 2. 5, 3. 2. 123), the idea of the return of similars into similars (1. 1. 50), the idea of change _vikâra_ as production of new qualities _gunântarâdhâna_ (5. 1. 2, 5. 1. 3) and the distinction of indriya and Buddhi (3. 3. 133). We may add to it that the _Mahâbhâsya_ agrees with the Yoga view as regards the Sphotavâda, which is not held in common by any other school of Indian philosophy. There is also this external similarity, that unlike any other work they both begin their works in a similar manner (_atha yogânus'âsanam_ and _athas'âbdânus'âsanam_)--"now begins the compilation of the instructions on Yoga" (_Yoga sûtrâ_)--and "now begins the compilation of the instructions of words" (_Mahâbhâsya_).

It may further be noticed in this connection that the arguments which Professor Woods has adduced to assign the date of the _Yoga sûtra_ between 300 and 500 A.D. are not at all conclusive, as they stand on a weak basis; for firstly if the two Patañjalis cannot be identified, it does not follow that the editor of the Yoga should necessarily be made later; secondly, the supposed Buddhist [Footnote ref 34] reference is found in the fourth chapter which, as I have shown above, is a later interpolation; thirdly, even if they were written by Patañjali it cannot be inferred that because Vâcaspati describes the opposite school as being of the Vijñâna-vâdi type, we are to infer that the sûtras refer to Vasubandhu or even to Nâgârjuna, for such ideas as have been refuted in the sûtras had been developing long before the time of Nâgârjuna.

Thus we see that though the tradition of later commentators may not be accepted as a sufficient ground to identify the two Patañjalis, we cannot discover anything from a comparative critical study of the _Yoga sûtras_ and the text of the _Mahâbhâsya,_ which can lead us to say that the writer of the _Yoga sûtras_ flourished at a later date than the other Patañjali.

Postponing our views about the time of Patañjali the Yoga editor, I regret I have to increase the confusion by introducing the other work _Kitâb Pâtanjal_, of which Alberuni speaks, for our consideration. Alberuni considers this work as a very famous one and he translates it along with another book called _Sânka_ (Sâmkhya) ascribed to Kapila. This book was written in the form of dialogue between master and pupil, and it is certain that this book was not the present _Yoga sûtra_ of Patañjali, though it had the same aim as the latter, namely the search for liberation and for the union of the soul with the object of its meditation. The book was called by Alberuni _Kitâb Pâtanjal_, which is to be translated as the book of Pâtañjala, because in another place, speaking of its author, he puts in a Persian phrase which when translated stands as "the author of the book of Pâtanjal." It had also an elaborate commentary from which Alberuni quotes many extracts, though he does not tell us the author's name. It treats of God, soul, bondage, karma, salvation, etc., as we find in the _Yoga sûtra_, but the manner in which these are described (so far as can be judged from the copious extracts supplied by Alberuni) shows that these ideas had undergone some change from what we find in the _Yoga sûtra_. Following the idea of God in Alberuni we find that he retains his character as a timeless emancipated being, but he speaks, hands over the Vedas and shows the way to Yoga and inspires men in such a way that they could obtain by cogitation what he bestowed on them. The name of God proves his existence, for there cannot exist anything of which the name existed, but not the thing. The soul perceives him and thought comprehends his qualities. Meditation is identical with worshipping him exclusively, and by practising it uninterruptedly the individual comes into supreme absorption with him and beatitude is obtained [Footnote ref 35].

The idea of soul is the same as we find in the _Yoga sûtra._ The idea of metempsychosis is also the same. He speaks of the eight siddhis (miraculous powers) at the first stage of meditation on the unity of God. Then follow the other four stages of meditation corresponding to the four stages we have as in the _Yoga sûtra._ He gives four kinds of ways for the achievement of salvation, of which the first is the _abhyâsa_ (habit) of Patañjali, and the object of this abhyâsa is unity with God [Footnote ref 36]. The second stands for vairâgya; the third is the worship of God with a view to seek his favour in the attainment of salvation (cf. _Yoga sûtra,_ I. 23 and I. 29). The fourth is a new introduction, namely that of rasâyana or alchemy. As regards liberation the view is almost the same as in the _Yoga sûtra,_ II. 25 and IV. 34, but the liberated state is spoken of in one place as absorption in God or being one with him. The Brahman is conceived as an _urddhvamûla avâks'âkha as'vattha_ (a tree with roots upwards and branches below), after the Upanisad fashion, the upper root is pure Brahman, the trunk is Veda, the branches are the different doctrines and schools, its leaves are the different modes of interpretation. Its nourishment comes from the three forces; the  object of the worshipper is to leave the tree and go back to the roots.

The difference of this system from that of the _Yoga sûtra_ is: (1) the conception of God has risen here to such an importance that he has become the only object of meditation, and absorption in him is the goal; (2) the importance of the yama [Footnote ref 37] and the niyama has been reduced to the minimum; (3) the value of the Yoga discipline as a separate means of salvation apart from any connection with God as we find in the _Yoga sûtra_ has been lost sight of; (4) liberation and Yoga are defined as absorption in God; (5) the introduction of Brahman; (6) the very significance of Yoga as control of mental states (_cittarttinirodha_) is lost sight of, and (7) rasâyana (alchemy) is introduced as one of the means of salvation.

From this we can fairly assume that this was a new modification of the Yoga doctrine on the basis of Patañjali's _Yoga sûtra_ in the direction of Vedânta and Tantra, and as such it probably stands as the transition link through which the Yoga doctrine of the sûtras entered into a new channel in such a way that it could be easily assimilated from there by later developments of Vedânta, Tantra and S'aiva doctrines [Footnote ref 38]. As the author mentions rasâyana as a means of salvation, it is very probable that he flourished after Nâgarjuna and was probably the same person who wrote _Pâtañjala tantra_, who has been quoted by S'ivadâsa in connection with alchemical matters and spoken of by Nâges'a as "_Carake_ Patañjalih." We can also assume with some degree of probability that it is with reference to this man that Cakrapani and Bhoja made the confusion of identifying him with the writer of the _Mahâbhâsya. It is also very probable that Cakrapâni by his line "_pâtañjalamahâbhâsyacarakapratisamskrtaih_" refers to this work which was called "Pâtañjala." The commentator of this work gives some description of the lokas, dvîpas and the sâgaras, which runs counter to the descriptions given in the _Vyâsabhâsya_, III. 26, and from this we can infer that it was probably written at a time when the _Vyâsabhâsya_ was not written or had not attained any great sanctity or authority. Alberuni also described the book as being very famous at the time, and Bhoja and Cakrapâni also probably confused him with Patañjali the grammarian; from this we can fairly assume that this book of Patañjali was probably written by some other Patañjali within the first 300 or 400 years of the Christian era; and it may not be improbable that when _Vyâsabhâsya_ quotes in III. 44 as "_iti_ Patañjalih," he refers to this Patañjali.

The conception of Yoga as we meet it in the Maitrâyana Upanisad consisted of six angas or accessories, namely prânâyâma, pratyâhâra, dhyâna, dharanâ, tarka and samâdhi [Footnote ref 39]. Comparing this list with that of the list in the _Yoga sûtras_ we find that two new elements have been added, and tarka has been replaced by âsana. Now from the account of the sixty-two heresies given in the _Brahmajâla sutta_ we know that there were people who either from meditation of three degrees or through logic and reasoning had come to believe that both the external world as a whole and individual souls were eternal. From the association of this last mentioned logical school with the Samâdhi or Dhyâna school as belonging to one class of thinkers called s'âs'vatavâda, and from the inclusion of tarka as an anga in samâdhi, we can fairly assume that the last of the angas given in Maitrâyanî Upanisad represents the oldest list of the Yoga doctrine, when the Sâmkhya and the Yoga were in a process of being grafted on each other, and when the Samkhya method of discussion did not stand as a method independent of the Yoga. The substitution of âsana for tarka in the list of Patañjali shows that the Yoga had developed a method separate from the Samkhya. The introduction of ahimsâ (non-injury), satya (truthfulness), asteya (want of stealing), brahmacaryya (sex-control), aparigraha (want of greed) as yama and s'auca (purity), santosa (contentment) as niyama, as a system of morality without which Yoga is deemed impossible (for the first time in the sûtras), probably marks the period when the disputes between the Hindus and the Buddhists had not become so keen. The introduction of maitrî, karunâ, muditâ, upeksâ is also equally significant, as we do not find them mentioned in such a prominent form in any other literature of the Hindus dealing with the subject of emancipation. Beginning from the _Âcârângasûtra, Uttarâdhyayanasûtra_, the _Sûtrakrtângasûtra,_ etc., and passing through Umâsvati's _Tattvârthâdhigamasûtra_ to Hemacandra's _Yogas'âstra_ we find that the Jains had been founding their Yoga discipline mainly on the basis of a system of morality indicated by the yamas, and the opinion expressed in Alberuni's _Pâtanjal_ that these cannot give salvation marks the divergence of the Hindus in later days from the Jains. Another important characteristic of Yoga is its thoroughly pessimistic tone. Its treatment of sorrow in connection with the statement of the scope and ideal of Yoga is the same as that of the four sacred truths of the Buddhists, namely suffering, origin of suffering, the removal of suffering, and of the path to the removal of suffering [Footnote ref 40]. Again, the metaphysics of the samsâra (rebirth) cycle in connection with sorrow, origination, decease, rebirth, etc. is described with a remarkable degree of similarity with the cycle of causes as described in early Buddhism. Avidyâ is placed at the head of the group; yet this avidyâ should not be confused with the Vedânta avidyâ of S'ankara, as it is an avidyâ of the Buddhist type; it is not a cosmic power of illusion nor anything like a mysterious original sin, but it is within the range of earthly tangible reality. Yoga avidyâ is the ignorance of the four sacred truths, as we have in the sûtra "_anityâs'uciduhkhânâtmasu nityas'uciduhkhâtmakhyâtiravidyâ_" (II. 5).

The ground of our existing is our will to live (_abhinives'a_). "This is our besetting sin that we will to be, that we will to be ourselves, that we fondly will our being to blend with other kinds of existence and extend. The negation of the will to be, cuts off being for us at least [Footnote ref 41]." This is true as much of Buddhism as of the Yoga abhinives'a, which is a term coined and used in the Yoga for the first time to suit the Buddhist idea, and which has never been accepted, so far as I know, in any other Hindu literature in this sense. My sole aim in pointing out these things in this section is to show that the _Yoga sûtras_ proper (first three chapters) were composed at a time when the later forms of Buddhism had not developed, and when the quarrels between the Hindus and the Buddhists and Jains had not reached such a stage that they would not like to borrow from one another. As this can only be held true of earlier Buddhism I am disposed to think that the date of the first three chapters of the _Yoga sûtras_ must be placed about the second century B.C. Since there is no evidence which can stand in the way of identifying the grammarian Patañjali with the Yoga writer, I believe we may take them as being identical [Footnote ref 43].

The Sâmkhya and the Yoga Doctrine of Soul or Purusa.

The Sâmkhya philosophy as we have it now admits two principles, souls and _prakrti_, the root principle of matter. Souls are many, like the Jaina souls, but they are without parts and qualities. They do not contract or expand according as they occupy a smaller or a larger body, but are always all-pervasive, and are not contained in the bodies in which they are manifested. But the relation between body or rather the mind associated with it and soul is such that whatever mental phenomena happen in the mind are interpreted as the experience of its soul. The souls are many, and had it not been so (the Sâmkhya argues) with the birth of one all would have been born and with the death of one all would have died [Footnote ref 44].

The exact nature of soul is however very difficult of comprehension, and yet it is exactly this which one must thoroughly grasp in order to understand the Sâmkhya philosophy. Unlike the Jaina soul possessing _anantajñâna, anantadars'ana, anantasukha_, and _anantavîryya_, the Sâmkhya soul is described as being devoid of any and every characteristic; but its nature is absolute pure consciousness (_cit_). The Sâmkhya view differs from the Vedânta, firstly in this that it does not consider the soul to be of the nature of pure intelligence and bliss (_ânanda_) [Footnote ref 45]. Bliss with Sâmkhya is but another name for pleasure and as such it belongs to prakrti and does not constitute the nature of soul; secondly, according to Vedânta the individual souls (_Jîva_) are but illusory manifestations of one soul or pure consciousness the Brahman, but according to Sâmkhya they are all real and many.

The most interesting feature of Sâmkhya as of Vedânta is the analysis of knowledge. Sâmkhya holds that our knowledge of things are mere ideational pictures or images. External things are indeed material, but the sense data and images of the mind, the coming and going of which is called knowledge, are also in some sense matter-stuff, since they are limited in their nature like the external things. The sense-data and images come and go, they are often the prototypes, or photographs of external things, and as such ought to be considered as in some sense material, but the matter of which these are composed is the subtlest. These images of the mind could not have appeared as conscious, if there were no separate principles of consciousness in connection with which the whole conscious plane could be interpreted as the experience of a person [Footnote ref 46]. We know that the Upanisads consider the soul or atman as pure and infinite consciousness, distinct from the forms of knowledge, the ideas, and the images. In our ordinary ways of mental analysis we do not detect that beneath the forms of knowledge there is some other principle which has no change, no form, but which is like a light which illumines the mute, pictorial forms which the mind assumes. The self is nothing but this light. We all speak of our "self" but we have no mental picture of the self as we have of other things, yet in all our knowledge we seem to know our self. The Jains had said that the soul was veiled by karma matter, and every act of knowledge meant only the partial removal of the veil. Sâmkhya says that the self cannot be found as an image of knowledge, but that is because it is a distinct, transcendent principle, whose real nature as such is behind or beyond the subtle matter of knowledge. Our cognitions, so far as they are mere forms or images, are merely compositions or complexes of subtle mind-substance, and thus are like a sheet of painted canvas immersed in darkness; as the canvas gets prints from outside and moves, the pictures appear one by one before the light and arc illuminated. So it is with our knowledge. The special characteristic of self is that it is like a light, without which all knowledge would be blind. Form and motion are the characteristics of matter, and so far as knowledge is mere limited form and movement it is the same as matter; but there is some other principle which enlivens these knowledge-forms, by virtue of which they become conscious. This principle of consciousness (_cit_) cannot indeed be separately perceived _per se_, but the presence of this principle in all our forms of knowledge is distinctly indicated by inference. This principle of consciousness has no motion, no form, no quality, no impurity [Footnote ref 47]. The movement of the knowledge-stuff takes place in relation to it, so that it is illuminated as consciousness by it, and produces the appearance of itself as undergoing all changes of knowledge and experiences of pleasure and pain. Each item of knowledge so far as it is an image or a picture of some sort is but a subtle knowledge-stuff which has been illumined by the principle of consciousness, but so far as each item of knowledge carries with it the awakening or the enlivening of consciousness, it is the manifestation of the principle of consciousness. Knowledge-revelation is not just the unveiling or revelation of a particular part of the self, as the Jains supposed, but it is a revelation of the self only so far as knowledge is pure awakening, pure enlivening, pure consciousness. So far as the content of knowledge or the image is concerned, it is not the revelation of self but is the blind knowledge-stuff.

The Buddhists had analysed knowledge into its diverse constituent parts, and had held that the coming together of these brought about the conscious states. This coming together was to them the point of the illusory notion of self, since this unity or coming together was not a permanent thing but a momentary collocation. With Sãmkhya however the self, the pure _cit_, is neither illusory nor an abstraction; it is concrete but transcendent. Coming into touch with it gives unity to all the movements of the knowledge-composites of subtle stuff, which would otherwise have remained aimless and unintelligent. It is by coming into connection with this principle of intelligence that they are interpreted as the systematic and coherent experience of a person, and may thus be said to be intelligized. Intelligizing means the expression and interpretation of the events or the happenings of knowledge in connection with a person, so as to make them a system of experience. This principle of intelligence is called purusa. There is a separate purusa in Sâmkhya for each individual, and it is of the nature of pure intelligence. The Vedânta âtman however is different from the Sâmkhya purusa in this that it is one and is of the nature of pure intelligence, pure being, and pure bliss. It alone is the reality and by illusory mâyâ it appears as many.

Thought and Matter.

A question naturally arises, that if the knowledge forms are made up of some sort of stuff as the objective forms of matter are, why then should the purusa illuminate it and not external material objects. The answer that Sâmkhya gives is that the knowledge-complexes are certainly different from external objects in this, that they are far subtler and have a preponderance of a special quality of plasticity and translucence (_sattva_), which resembles the light of purusa, and is thus fit for reflecting and absorbing the light of the purusa. The two principal characteristics of external gross matter are mass and energy. But it has also the other characteristic of allowing itself to be photographed by our mind; this thought-photograph of matter has again the special privilege of being so translucent as to be able to catch the reflection of the _cit_--the super-translucent transcendent principle of intelligence. The fundamental characteristic of external gross matter is its mass; energy is common to both gross matter and the subtle thought-stuff. But mass is at its lowest minimum in thought-stuff, whereas the capacity of translucence, or what may be otherwise designated as the intelligence-stuff, is at its highest in thought-stuff. But if the gross matter had none of the characteristics of translucence that thought possesses, it could not have made itself an object of thought; for thought transforms itself into the shape, colour, and other characteristics of the thing which has been made its object. Thought could not have copied the matter, if the matter did not possess some of the essential substances of which the copy was made up. But this plastic entity (_sattva_) which is so predominant in thought is at its lowest limit of subordination in matter. Similarly mass is not noticed in thought, but some such notions as are associated with mass may be discernible in

242

thought; thus the images of thought are limited, separate, have movement, and have more or less clear cut forms. The images do not extend in space, but they can represent space. The translucent and plastic element of thought (_sattva_) in association with movement (_rajas_) would have resulted in a simultaneous revelation of all objects; it is on account of mass or tendency of obstruction (_tamas_) that knowledge proceeds from image to image and discloses things in a successive manner. The buddhi (thought-stuff) holds within it all knowledge immersed as it were in utter darkness, and actual knowledge comes before our view as though by the removal of the darkness or veil, by the reflection of the light of the purusa. This characteristic of knowledge, that all its stores are hidden as if lost at any moment, and only one picture or idea comes at a time to the arena of revelation, demonstrates that in knowledge there is a factor of obstruction which manifests itself in its full actuality in gross matter as mass. Thus both thought and gross matter are made up of three elements, a plasticity of intelligence-stuff (_sattva_), energy-stuff (_rajas_), and mass-stuff (_tamas_), or the factor of obstruction. Of these the last two are predominant in gross matter and the first two in thought.

Feelings, the Ultimate Substances [Footnote ref 48].

Another question that arises in this connection is the position of feeling in such an analysis of thought and matter. Sâmkhya holds that the three characteristic constituents that we have analyzed just now are feeling substances. Feeling is the most interesting side of our consciousness. It is in our feelings that we think of our thoughts as being parts of ourselves. If we should analyze any percept into the crude and undeveloped sensations of which it is composed at the first moment of its appearance, it comes more as a shock than as an image, and we find that it is felt more as a feeling mass than as an image. Even in our ordinary life the elements which precede an act of knowledge are probably mere feelings. As we go lower down the scale of evolution the automatic actions and relations of matter are concomitant with crude manifestations of feeling which never rise to the level of knowledge. The lower the scale of evolution the less is the keenness of feeling, till at last there comes a stage where matter-complexes do not give rise to feeling reactions but to mere physical reactions. Feelings thus mark the earliest track of consciousness, whether we look at it from the point of view of evolution or of the genesis of consciousness in ordinary life. What we call matter complexes become at a certain stage feeling-complexes and what we call feeling-complexes at a certain stage of descent sink into mere matter-complexes with matter reaction. The feelings are therefore the things-in-themselves, the ultimate substances of which consciousness and gross matter are made up. Ordinarily a difficulty might be felt in taking feelings to be the ultimate substances of which gross matter and thought are made up; for we are more accustomed to take feelings as being merely subjective, but if we remember the Sâmkhya analysis, we find that it holds that thought and matter are but two different modifications of certain subtle substances which are in essence but three types of feeling entities. The three principal characteristics of thought and matter that we have noticed in the preceding section are but the manifestations of three types of feeling substances. There is the class of feelings that we call the sorrowful, there is another class of feelings that we call pleasurable, and there is still another class which is neither sorrowful nor pleasurable, but is one of ignorance, depression (_visâda_) or dullness. Thus corresponding to these three types of manifestations as pleasure, pain, and dullness, and materially as shining (_prakâs'a_), energy (_pravrtti_), obstruction (_niyama_), there are three types of feeling-substances which must be regarded as the ultimate things which make up all the diverse kinds of gross matter and thought by their varying modifications.

The Gunas [Footnote ref 49].

These three types of ultimate subtle entities are technically called _guna_ in Sâmkhya philosophy. Guna in Sanskrit has three meanings, namely (1) quality, (2) rope, (3) not primary. These entities, however, are substances and not mere qualities. But it may be mentioned in this connection that in Sâmkhya philosophy there is no separate existence of qualities; it holds that each and every unit of quality is but a unit of substance. What we call quality is but a particular manifestation or appearance of a subtle entity. Things do not possess quality, but quality signifies merely the manner in which a substance reacts; any object we see seems to possess many qualities, but the Sâmkhya holds that corresponding to each and every new unit of quality, however fine and subtle it may be, there is a corresponding subtle entity, the reaction of which is interpreted by us as a quality. This is true not only of qualities of external objects but also of mental qualities as well. These ultimate entities were thus called gunas probably to suggest that they are the entities which by their various modifications manifest themselves as gunas or qualities. These subtle entities may also be called gunas in the sense of ropes because they are like ropes by which the soul is chained down as if it were to thought and matter. These may also be called gunas as things of secondary importance, because though permanent and indestructible, they continually suffer modifications and changes by their mutual groupings and re-groupings, and thus not primarily and unalterably constant like the souls (_purusa_). Moreover the object of the world process being the enjoyment and salvation of the purusas, the matter-principle could not naturally be regarded as being of primary importance. But in whatever senses we may be inclined to justify the name guna as applied to these subtle entities, it should be borne in mind that they are substantive entities or subtle substances and not abstract qualities. These gunas are infinite in number, but in accordance with their three main characteristics as described above they have been arranged in three classes or types called _sattva_ (intelligence-stuff), _rajas_ (energy-stuff) and _tamas_ (mass-stuff). An infinite number of subtle substances which agree in certain characteristics of self-shining or plasticity are called the _sattva-gunas_ and those which behave as units of activity are called the _rajo-gunas_ and those which behave as factors of obstruction, mass or materiality are called _tamo-gunas_. These subtle guna substances are united in different proportions (e.g. a larger number of sattva substances with a lesser number of rajas or tamas, or a larger number of tamas substances with a smaller number of rajas and sattva substances and so on in varying proportions), and as a result of this, different substances with different qualities come into being. Though attached to one another when united in different proportions, they mutually act and react upon one another, and thus by their combined resultant produce new characters, qualities and substances. There is however one and only one stage in which the gunas are not compounded in varying proportions. In this state each of the guna substances is opposed by each of the other guna substances, and thus by their equal mutual opposition create an equilibrium, in which none of the characters of the gunas manifest themselves. This is a state which is so absolutely devoid of all characteristics that it is absolutely incoherent, indeterminate, and indefinite. It is a qualitiless simple homogeneity. It is a state of being which is as it were non-being. This state of the mutual equilibrium of the gunas is called prakrti [Footnote ref 50]. This is a state which cannot be said either to exist or to non-exist for it serves no purpose, but it is hypothetically the mother of all things. This is however the earliest stage, by the breaking of which, later on, all modifications take place.

Prakrti and its Evolution.

Sâmkhya believes that before this world came into being there was such a state of dissolution--a state in which the guna compounds had disintegrated into a state of disunion and had by their mutual opposition produced an equilibrium the prakrti. Then later on disturbance arose in the prakrti, and as a result of that a process of unequal aggregation of the gunas in varying proportions took place, which brought forth the creation of the manifold. Prakrti, the state of perfect homogeneity and incoherence of the gunas, thus gradually evolved and became more and more determinate, differentiated, heterogeneous, and coherent. The gunas are always uniting, separating, and uniting again [Footnote ref 51]. Varying qualities of essence, energy, and mass in varied groupings act on one another and through their mutual interaction and interdependence evolve from the indefinite or qualitatively indeterminate the definite or qualitatively determinate. And though co-operating to produce the world of effects, these diverse moments with diverse tendencies never coalesce. Thus in the phenomenal product whatever energy there is is due to the element of rajas and rajas alone; all matter, resistance, stability, is due to tamas, and all conscious manifestation to sattva. The particular guna which happens to be predominant in any phenomenon becomes manifest in that phenomenon and others become latent, though their presence is inferred by their effect. Thus, for example, in a body at rest mass is patent, energy latent and potentiality of conscious manifestation sublatent. In a moving body, the rajas is predominant (kinetic) and the mass is partially overcome. All these transformations of the groupings of the gunas in different proportions presuppose the state of prakrti as the starting point. It is at this stage that the tendencies to conscious manifestation, as well as the powers of doing work, are exactly counterbalanced by the resistance of inertia or mass, and the process of cosmic evolution is at rest. When this equilibrium is once destroyed, it is supposed that out of a natural affinity of all the sattva reals for themselves, of rajas reals for other reals of their type, of tamas reals for others of their type, there arises an unequal aggregation of sattva, rajas, or tamas at different moments. When one guna is preponderant in any particular collocation, the others are co-operant. This evolutionary series beginning from the first disturbance of the prakrti to the final transformation as the world-order, is subject to "a definite law which it cannot overstep." In the words of Dr B.N.Seal [Footnote ref 52], "the process of evolution consists in the development of the differentiated (_vaisamya_) within the undifferentiated (_sâmyâvasthâ_) of the determinate (_vies'a_) within the indeterminate (_avis'esa_) of the coherent (_yutasiddha_) within the incoherent (_ayutasiddha_). The order of succession is neither from parts to whole nor from whole to the parts, but ever from a relatively less differentiated, less determinate, less coherent whole to a relatively more differentiated, more determinate, more coherent whole." The meaning of such an evolution is this, that all the changes and modifications in the shape of the evolving collocations of guna reals take place within the body of the prakrti. Prakrti consisting of the infinite reals is infinite, and that it has been disturbed does not mean that the whole of it has been disturbed and upset, or that the totality of the gunas in the prakrti has been unhinged from a state of equilibrium. It means rather that a very vast number of gunas constituting the worlds of thought and matter has been upset. These gunas once thrown out of balance begin to group themselves together first in one form, then in another, then in another, and so on. But such a change in the formation of aggregates should not be thought to take place in such a way that the later aggregates appear in supersession of the former ones, so that when the former comes into being the latter ceases to exist. 

For the truth is that one stage is produced after another; this second stage is the result of a new aggregation of some of the reals of the first stage. This deficiency of the reals of the first stage which had gone forth to form the new aggregate as the second stage is made good by a refilling from the prakrti. So also, as the third stage of aggregation takes place from out of the reals of the second stage, the deficiency of the reals of the second stage is made good by a refilling from the first stage and that of the first stage from the prakrti. Thus by a succession of refillings the process of evolution proceeds, till we come to its last limit, where there is no real evolution of new substance, but mere chemical and physical changes of qualities in things which had already evolved. Evolution (_tattvântaraparinâma_) in Sâmkhya means the development of categories of existence and not mere changes of qualities of substances (physical, chemical, biological or mental). Thus each of the stages of evolution remains as a permanent category of being, and offers scope to the more and more differentiated and coherent groupings of the succeeding stages. Thus it is said that the evolutionary process is regarded as a differentiation of new stages as integrated in previous stages (_samsrstaviveka_).

Pralaya and the disturbance of the Prakrti Equilibrium.

But how or rather why prakrti should be disturbed is the most knotty point in Sâmkhya. It is postulated that the prakrti or the sum-total of the gunas is so connected with the purusas, and there is such an inherent teleology or blind purpose in the lifeless prakrti, that all its evolution and transformations tike place for the sake of the diverse purusas, to serve the enjoyment of pleasures and sufferance of pain through experiences, and finally leading them to absolute freedom or mukti. A return of this manifold world into the quiescent state (_pralaya_) of prakrti takes place when the karmas of all purusas collectively require that there should be such a temporary cessation of all experience. At such a moment the guna compounds are gradually broken, and there is a backward movement (_pratisañcara_) till everything is reduced, to the gunas in their elementary disintegrated state when their mutual opposition brings about their equilibrium. This equilibrium however is not a mere passive state, but one of utmost tension; there is intense activity, but the activity here does not lead to the generation of new things and qualities (_visadrs'a-parinâma_); this course of new

248

production being suspended, the activity here repeats the same state (_sadrs'a-parinâma_) of equilibrium, so that there is no change or new production. The state of pralaya thus is not a suspension of the teleology or purpose of the gunas, or an absolute break of the course of guna evolution; for the state of pralaya, since it has been generated to fulfil the demands of the accumulated karmas of purusas, and since there is still the activity of the gunas in keeping themselves in a state of suspended production, is also a stage of the samsâra cycle. The state of mukti (liberation) is of course quite different, for in that stage the movement of the gunas ceases forever with reference to the liberated soul. But still the question remains, what breaks the state of equilibrium? The Sâmkhya answer is that it is due to the transcendental (non-mechanical) influence of the purusa [Footnote ref 53]. This influence of the purusa again, if it means anything, means that there is inherent in the gunas a teleology that all their movements or modifications should take place in such a way that these may serve the purposes of the purusas. Thus when the karmas of the purusas had demanded that there should be a suspension of all experience, for a period there was a pralaya. At the end of it, it is the same inherent purpose of the prakrti that wakes it up for the formation of a suitable world for the experiences of the purusas by which its quiescent state is disturbed. This is but another way of looking at the inherent teleology of the prakrti, which demands that a state of pralaya should cease and a state of world-framing activity should begin. Since there is a purpose in the gunas which brought them to a state of equilibrium, the state of equilibrium also presupposes that it also may be broken up again when the purpose so demands. Thus the inherent purpose of the prakrti brought about the state of pralaya and then broke it up for the creative work again, and it is this natural change in the prakrti that may be regarded from another point of view as the transcendental influence of the purusas.

Mahat and Ahamkâra.

The first evolute of the prakrti is generated by a preponderance of the sattva (intelligence-stuff). This is indeed the earliest state from which all the rest of the world has sprung forth; and it is a state in which the stuff of sattva predominates. It thus holds within it the minds (_buddhi_) of all purusas which were lost in the prakrti during the pralaya. The very first work of the evolution of prakrti to serve the purusas is thus manifested by the separating out of the old buddhis or minds (of the purusas) which hold within themselves the old specific ignorance (_avidyâ_) inherent in them with reference to each purusa with which any particular buddhi is associated from beginningless time before the pralaya. This state of evolution consisting of all the collected minds (buddhi) or all the purusas is therefore called _buddhitattva._ It is a state which holds or comprehends within it the buddhis of all individuals. The individual buddhis of individual purusas are on one hand integrated with the buddhitattva and on the other associated with their specific purusas. When some buddhis once begin to be separated from the prakrti, other buddhi evolutions take place. In other words, we are to understand that once the transformation of buddhis is effected for the service of the purusas, all the other direct transformations that take place from the prakrti take the same line, i.e. a preponderance of sattva being once created by the bringing out of some buddhis, other transformations of prakrti that follow them have also the sattva preponderance, which thus have exactly the same composition as the first buddhis. Thus the first transformation from prakrti becomes buddhi-transformation. This stage of buddhis may thus be regarded as the most universal stage, which comprehends within it all the buddhis of individuals and potentially all the matter of which the gross world is formed. Looked at from this point of view it has the widest and most universal existence comprising all creation, and is thus called _mahat_ (the great one). It is called _linga_ (sign), as the other later existences or evolutes give us the ground of inferring its existence, and as such must be distinguished from the prakrti which is called _alinga,_ i.e. of which no linga or characterise may be affirmed.

This mahat-tatva being once produced, further modifications begin to take place in three lines by three different kinds of undulations representing the sattva preponderance, rajas preponderance and tama preponderance. This state when the mahat is disturbed by the three parallel tendencies of a preponderance of tamas, rajas and sattva's called _ahamkâra,_ and the above three tendencies are respectiviy called _tâmasika ahamkâra_ or _bhûtâdi_, _râjasika_ or _taijasa ahamâra,_ and _vaikârika ahamkâra._ The râjasika ahamkâra cannot make a new preponderance by itself; it only

250

helps (_sahakâri_) the transformations of the sattva preponderance and the tamas preponderance. The development of the former preponderance, as is easy to see, is only the assumption of a more and more determinate character of the buddhi, for we remember that buddhi itself has been the resulting transformation of a sattva preponderance. Further development with the help of rajas on the line of sattva development could only take place when the buddhi as mind determined itself in specific ways. The first development of the buddhi on this line is called _sâttvika_ or _vaikârika ahamkâra_. This ahamkâra represents the development in buddhi to produce a consciousness-stuff as I or rather "mine," and must thus be distinguished from the first stage as buddhi the function of which is a mere understanding and general datun as thisness.

The ego or ahamkâra (_abhimâna-dravya_) is the specific expression of the general consciousness which takes experience as mine. The function of the ego is therefore called _abhimâna_ (self-assertion). From this again come the five cognitive senses of vision, touch, smell, taste, and hearing, the five cognitive senses of speech, handling, foot-movement, the ejective sense and the generative sense; the _prânas_ (bio-motor force) which help both conation and cognition are but aspects of buddhi-movement as life. The individual ahamkâras and senses are related to the individual buddhis by the developing sattva determinations from which they had come into being. Each buddhi with its own group of akamkâra (ego) and sense-evolutes thus forms a microcosm separate from similar other buddhis with their associated groups. So far therefore as knowledge is subject to sense-influence and the ego, it is different for each individual, but so far as a general mind (_kârana buddhi_) apart from sense knowledge is concerned, there is a community of all buddhis in the buddhitattva. Even there however each buddhi is separated from other buddhis by its own peculiarly associated ignorance (_avidyâ_). The buddhi and its sattva evolutes of ahamkâra and the senses are so related that though they are different from buddhi in their functions, they are all comprehended in the buddhi, and mark only its gradual differentiations and modes. We must again remember in this connection the doctrine of refilling, for as buddhi exhausts its part in giving rise to ahamkâra, the deficiency of buddhi is made good by prakrti; again as ahamkâra partially exhausts itself in generating sense-faculties, the deficiency

251

is made good by a refilling from the buddhi. Thus the change and wastage of each of the stadia are always made good and kept constant by a constant refilling from each higher state and finally from prakrti.

The Tanmâtras and the Paramânus [Footnote ref 54].

The other tendency, namely that of tamas, has to be helped by the liberated rajas of ahamkâra, in order to make itself preponderant, and this state in which the tamas succeeds in overcoming the sattva side which was so preponderant in the buddhi, is called _bhûtâdi._ From this bhûtâdi with the help of rajas are generated the _tanmâtras,_ the immediately preceding causes of the gross elements. The bhûtâdi thus represents only the intermediate stage through which the differentiations and regroupings of tamas reals in the mahat proceed for the generation of the tanmâtras. There has been some controversy between Sâmkhya and Yoga as to whether the tanmâtras are generated from the mahat or from ahamkâra. The situation becomes intelligible if we remember that evolution here