FOOTNOTES:
[736] In the Sarva-darśana-saṅgraha, the best known compendium of Indian philosophy.
[737] J.C. Chatterji's definition of Indian philosophy (in his Indian Realism, p. 1) is interesting. "By Hindu philosophy I mean that branch of the ancient learning of the Hindus which demonstrates by reasoning propositions with regard to (a) what a man ought to do in order to gain true happiness ... or (b) what he ought to realize by direct experience in order to be radically and absolutely freed from suffering and to be absolutely independent, such propositions being already given and lines of reasoning in their support being established by duly qualified authorities."
[738] See Chatterji's work above cited.
[739] It is this idea which disposes educated Hindus to believe in the magical or sacramental power of mystic syllables and letters, though the use of such spells seems to Europeans incredible folly.
[740] See especially Garbe, Die Sâṅkhya Philosophie, 1894; and Keith, The Sâṅkhya System, 1919, which however reached me too late for me to make any use of it.
[741] E.g. in the Bhagavad-gîtâ and Śvetâśvatara Upanishads. According to tradition Kapila taught Asuri and he, Pañcaśikha, who made the system celebrated. Garbe thinks Pañcaśikha may be assigned to the first century A.D.
[742] This appears to be the real title of the Sûtras edited and translated by Ballantyne as "The Sâṅkhya Aphorisms of Kapila."
[743] Or topics. It is difficult to find any one English word which covers the twenty-five tattvas, for they include both general and special ideas, mind and matter on the one hand; special organs on the other.
[744] Sâṅkh. Pravac. I. 96.
[745] Garbe, Die Sâṅkhya Philosophie, p. 222. He considers that it spread thence to other schools. This involves the assumption that the Sâṅkhya is prior to Buddhism and Jainism.
[746] Ears, skin, eyes, tongue and nose.
[747] Voice, hands, feet, organs of excretion and generation.
[748] Verse 40.
[749] Cf. the Buddhist Sankhâras.
[750] Sâṅkh. Kâr. 62.
[751] Sâṅkh. Kâr. 59-61.
[752] Sâṅkh. Pravac. I. 92-95.
[753] Sâṅkh. Pravac. V. 2-12.
[754] Thus Sâṅkh. Pravac. V. 46, says Tatkartuḥ purushasyâbhâvât and the commentary explains Îśvara-pratishedhâd iti śeshah "supply the words, because we deny that there is a supreme God."
[755] Nevertheless the commentator Vijñâna-Bhikshu (c. 1500) tries to explain away this atheism and to reconcile the Sâṅkhya with the Vedânta. See Garbe's preface to his edition of the Sâṅkhya-pravacana-bhâshya.
[756] VI. 13.
[757] V. 5.
[758] Îśvara is apparently a purusha like others but greater in glory and untouched by human infirmities. Yoga sûtras, I. 24-26.
[759] It is a singular fact that both the Sâṅkhya-kârikâ-bhâshya and a treatise on the Vaiśeshika philosophy are included in the Chinese Tripitaka (Nanjio, Cat. Nos. 1300 and 1295). A warning is however added that they are not "the law of the Buddha."
[760] See Jacobi, J.A.O.S. Dec. 1910, p. 24. But if Vasubandhu lived about 280-360, as is now generally believed, allusions to the Yogâcâra school in the Yoga sûtras do not oblige us to place the sûtras much later than 300 A.D. since the Yogâcâra was founded by Asanga, the brother of Vasubandhu.
[761] I find it hard to accept Deussen's view (Philosophy of the Upanishads, chap. X) that the Sâṅkhya has grown out of the Vedânta.
[762] See e.g. Vishṇu Purâṇa, I. chaps. 2, 4, 5. The Bhagavad-gîtâ, though almost the New Testament of Vedantists, uses the words Sâṅkhya and Yoga in several passages as meaning speculative truth and the religious life and is concerned to show that they are the same. See II. 39; III. 3; V. 4, 5.
[763] It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that there has been endless discussion as to the sense and manner in which the soul is God.
[764] Bṛihad Âran. IV. 4. 6; Ib. I. iv. 10. "I am Brahman."
[765] See above Book II. chaps. V and VI.
[766] Chând. Up. III. 14.
[767] Chând. Up. VI.
[768] See Deussen, Philosophy of the Upanishads.
[769] Ato'nyad ârtam. Bṛihad Âr. III. several times.
[770] Maitrâyaṇa. Brâh. Upanishad, VI. 20. "Having seen his own self as The Self he becomes selfless, and because he is selfless he is without limit, without cause, absorbed in thought."
[771] There is nothing to fix the date of this work except that Kumârila in commenting on it in the eighth century treats it as old and authoritative. It was perhaps composed in the early Gupta period.
[772] Keith in J.R.A.S. 1907, p. 492 says it is becoming more and more probable that Bâdarâyaṇa cannot be dated after the Christian era. Jacobi in J.A.O.S. 1911, p. 29 concludes that the Brahma-sûtras were composed between 200 and 450 A.D.
[773] Such attempts must have begun early. The Maitrâyana Upanishad (II. 3) talks of Sarvopanishadvidyâ, the science of all the Upanishads.
[774] See above, p. 207 ff.
[775] The same distinction occurs in the works of Meister Eckhart († 1327 A.D.) who in many ways approximates to Indian thought, both Buddhist and Vedântist. He makes a distinction between the Godhead and God. The Godhead is the revealer but unrevealed: it is described as "wordless" (Yâjnavalkya's neti, neti), "the nameless nothing," "the immoveable rest." But God is the manifestation of the Godhead, the uttered word. "All that is in the Godhead is one. Therefore we can say nothing. He is above all names, above all nature. God works, so doeth not the Godhead. Therein are they distinguished, in working and in not working. The end of all things is the hidden darkness of the eternal Godhead, unknown and never to be known." (Quoted by Rufus Jones, Studies in Mystical Religion, p. 225.) It may be doubted if Śankara's distinction between the Higher and Lower Brahman is to be found in the Upanishads but it is probably the best means of harmonizing the discrepancies in those works which Indian theologians feel bound to explain away.
[776] Vedânta sûtras, II. 1. 32-3, and Śaṅkara's commentary, S.B.E. vol. XXXIV. pp. 356-7. Râmânuja holds a similar view and it is very common in India, e.g. Vishṇu Pur. I. chap. 2.
[777] See too a remarkable passage in his comment on Brahma-sûtras, II. 1. 23. "As soon as the consciousness of non-difference arises in us, the transmigratory state of the individual soul and the creative quality of Brahman vanish at once, the whole phenomenon of plurality which springs from wrong knowledge being sublated by perfect knowledge and what becomes then of the creation and the faults of not doing what is beneficial and the like?"
[778] Although Śaṅkara's commentary is a piece of severe ratiocination, especially in its controversial parts, yet he holds that the knowledge of Brahman depends not on reasoning but on scripture and intuition. "The presentation before the mind of the Highest Self is effected by meditation and devotion." Brah. Sut. III. 2. 24. See too his comments on I. 1. 2 and II. 1. 11.
[779] See Sukhtankar, Teachings of Vedânta according to Râmânuja, pp. 17-19. Walleser, Der aeltere Vedânta, and De la Vallée Poussin in J.R.A.S. 1910, p. 129.
[780] This term is generally rendered by qualified, that is not absolute, Monism. But South Indian scholars give a slightly different explanation and maintain that it is equivalent to Viśishṭayor advaitam or the identity of the two qualified (viśishṭa) conditions of Brahman. Brahman is qualified by cit and acit, souls and matter, which stand to him in the relation of attributes. The two conditions are Kâryâvasthâ or period of cosmic manifestation in which cit and acit are manifest and Karaṇâvasthâ or period of cosmic dissolution, when they exist only in a subtle state within Brahman. These two conditions are not different (advaitam). See Srinivas Iyengar, J.R.A.S. 1912, p. 1073 and also Sri Râmânujâcárya: His Philosophy by Rajagopalacharyar.
[781] Compare the phrase of Keats in a letter quoted by Bosanquet, Gifford Lectures for 1912, p. 66. "As various as the lives of men are, so various become their souls and thus does God make individual beings, souls, identical souls of the sparks of his own essence."
[782] This tenet is justified by Bṛihad Aran. Up. III. 3 ff. which is a great text for Râmânuja's school. "He who dwells in the earth (water, etc.) and within the earth (or, is different from the earth) whom the earth knows not, whose body the earth is, who rules the earth within, he is thyself, the ruler within, the immortal."
[783]Bhag.-gîtâ, XV. 16, 17.
[784]The two doctrines are called Vivartavâda and Pariṇâmavâda.
[785]These are only the more subtle tattvas. There are also 60 gross ones. See for the whole subject Schomerus Der Çaiva-Siddhânta, p. 129.
[786]It also finds expression in myths about the division of the deity into male and female halves, the cosmic egg, etc., which are found in all strata of Indian literature.
[787]An account of tantric cosmology can be found in Avalon, Mahân. Tantra, pp xix-xxxi. See also Avalon, Prapancasâra Tantra, pp. 5 ff.; Srinivâsa Iyengar, Indian Philosophy, pp. 143 and 295 ff.; Bhandarkar, Vaishṇ. and Śaivism, pp. 145 ff.
[788] Sarva-darśana-saṇgraha, chap. IX. For this doctrine in China see Wieger Histoire des Croyances religieuses en Chine, p. 411.
[789] See Yule's Marco Polo, II. pp. 365, 369.
[790] See Rhys Davids' note in his Dialogues of the Buddha on Dîgha Nikâya, Sutta V. pp. 166 ff. He seems to show that Lokâyata meant originally natural philosophy as a part of a Brahman's education and only gradually acquired a bad meaning. The Arthasâstra also recommends the Sânkhya, Yoga and Lokâyata systems.
[791] Maitr. Up. VII. 8.
[792] See also Suali in Muséon, 1908, pp. 277 ff. and the article Materialism (Indian) in E.R.E. For another instance of ancient materialism see the views of Pâyâsi set forth in Dig. Nik. XXIII. The Bṛihad Ar. Up. III. 2. 13 implies that the idea of body and spirit being disintegrated at death was known though perhaps not relished.
[793] Translation by Shea and Troyer, vol. II. pp. 201-2.
[794] Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Adyar Library, 1908, pp. 300-1.