Reading section 8

[Footnote 50: In p. 29, line 2, read _tatsadbhávávedakasya_ for _tatsadbhávádekasya_.]

[Footnote 51: In p. 29, line 9, for _nikhilárthajñanát notpatty_, I propose to read _nikhilárthajñánotpatty_.]

[Footnote 52: _Janya_ is included in _Kárya_ and equally disputed.]

[Footnote 53: Thus "I am possessed of a body" (_aham Sarírí_), "my hand," &c., are all sentences in which a predicate involving the notion of parts is applied to the soul "I."]

[Footnote 54: Reasoning in a circle. I suppose the &c. includes the _Anavasthádosha_ or reasoning _ad infinitum_. He accepts the supposed fault, and holds that it is actually borne out in a case before everybody's eyes.]

[Footnote 55: In p. 31, line 5, _infra_, read _tattvárthe_ for _tattvártham_.]

[Footnote 56: I read in p. 32, line 9, _Samyagdarsanádi_ for _asamyagdarsanádi_; but the old text may mean "caused by the abolition of hindrances produced by the qualities, wrong intuition," &c.]

[Footnote 57: Cf. the five _yamas_ in the _Yoga-sútras_, ii. 30. Hemachandra (_Abhidh_ 81) calls them _yamas_.]

[Footnote 58: I read _kámánám_ for _kámánám_ in p. 33, line 7 (2 × 3 × 3 = 18).]

[Footnote 59: For _abháshana_, see Hemach. 16.]

[Footnote 60: I propose in p. 33, line 17, _rasayanajñánasraddhávacháranáni_ for _rasáyanajñanam sraddhánávaranáni_. For _avachárana_, see _Susruta_, vol. ii. p. 157, &c. If _anávarana_ be the true reading, I suppose it must mean "the absence of obstructions."]

[Footnote 61: This is a hard passage, but some light is thrown on it by the scholiast to Hemachandra, _Abhidh_. 79.]

[Footnote 62: Or this may mean "by the influence of _upasamakshaya_ or _kshayopasama_, it appears characterised by one or the other."]

[Footnote 63: I read in p. 34, line 7, _kalushádyákárena_ for _kalushányákárena_. The _upasamakshaya_ and _kshayopasama_ seem to correspond to the _aupasamika_ and _ksháyika_ states about to be described.]

[Footnote 64: _Strychnos potatorum._]

[Footnote 65: Just as in the Sánkhya philosophy, the soul is not really bound though it seems to itself to be so.]

[Footnote 66: A valid non-perception is when an object is not seen, and yet all the usual concurrent causes of vision are present, such as the eye, light, &c.]

[Footnote 67: I read in p. 35, line 5, _'stíti_ for _sthiti_.]

[Footnote 68: Hence the term here used for "category"--_astikáya_.]

[Footnote 69: These (by Hemach. _Abhidh._ 21), possess only one sense--touch. In p. 35, line 10, I read _sankhagandolakaprabhritayas trasás chaturvidháh prithivyaptejo_.]

[Footnote 70: In p. 35, line 16, I read _teshám ajívatvát_ for _teshám jívatvát_. If we keep the old reading we must translate it, "because the former only are animate."]

[Footnote 71: In p. 35, line 3 from bottom, I read _sarvatrávasthite_ for _sarvatrávasthiti_. In the preceding line I read _álokenávachchhinne_ for _álokenávichchhinne_.]

[Footnote 72: Cf. Siddhánta-muktávali, p. 27. The _vishaya_ is _upabhoga-sádhanam_, but it begins with the _dvyanuka_. This category takes up the forms of _sthávara_ which were excluded from _jíva_.]

[Footnote 73: It is an interesting illustration how thoroughly Mádhava for the time throws himself into the Jaina system which he is analysing, when we see that he gives the Jaina terminology for this definition of _dravya_,--cf. _Vaisesh. Sútra_, i. 1, 15. _Paryáya_ is explained as _karman_ in Hemach. _Anek_. _Paryáya_, in p. 36, line 11 (_infra_, p. 53, line 9), seems used in a different sense from that which it bears elsewhere. I have taken it doubtingly as in Hemach. _Abhidh_. 1503, _paryáyo 'nukramah kramah_.]

[Footnote 74: _Yoga_ seems to be here the natural impulse of the soul to act.]

[Footnote 75: In line 18, read _ásravanakáranatvád_.]

[Footnote 76: The _jnána_ is one, but it becomes apparently manifold by its connection with the senses and external objects.]

[Footnote 77: These are also called the eight _karmans_ in Govindánanda's gloss, _Ved. Sút._, ii. 2, 33.]

[Footnote 78: The Calcutta MS. reads _ádaraníyasya_ for _ávaraníyasya_, in p. 37, last line. But _ávaraníya_ may be used for _ávarana_ (_Pán._ iii. 4, 68). Cf. _Yoga Sút._, ii. 52, where Vyása's Comm. has _ávaraníya_.]

[Footnote 79: _Jálavat_? The printed text has _jalavat_.]

[Footnote 80: Umásvámi-?]

[Footnote 81: For the _ságaropama_, see Wilson's _Essays_, vol. i. p. 309. In p. 38, line 16, I read _ityádyuktakálád úrdhvam api_ for the obscure _ityádyuktam káladurddhánavat_. I also read at the end of the line _prachyutih sthitih_ for _prachyutisthitih_.]

[Footnote 82: In p. 38, line 18, read _svakáryakarane_.]

[Footnote 83: In p. 39, line 2 and line 5, for _írshyá_ read _íryá_,--a bad misreading.]

[Footnote 84: In p. 39, line 6, I read _ápadyetá_ for _ápadyatá_.]

[Footnote 85: In p. 39, line 9, for _seshaná_ read _saishaná_.]

[Footnote 86: In p. 39, line 12, join _nirjantu_ and _jagatítale_.]

[Footnote 87: Mádhava omits the remaining divisions of _samvara_. Wilson, _Essays_, vol. i. p. 311, gives them as _parishahá_, "endurance," as of a vow; _yatidharma_, "the ten duties of an ascetic, patience, gentleness," &c.; _bhávaná_, "conviction," such as that worldly existences are not eternal, &c.; _cháritra_, "virtuous observance."]

[Footnote 88: In p. 39, line 14, read _ásravasrotaso_.]

[Footnote 89: For _moha_, in line 16, read _moksha_.]

[Footnote 90: In p. 39, line 2 _infra_, I read _yathákála-_ for _yathá kála-_.]

[Footnote 91: This passage is very difficult and not improbably corrupt, and my interpretation of it is only conjectural. The ordinary _nirjará_ is when an action attains its end (like the lulling of a passion by the gratification), this lull is temporary. That _nirjará_ is "ancillary" which is rendered by asceticism a means to the attainment of the highest good. The former is _akámá_, "desireless," because at the moment the desire is satisfied and so dormant; the latter is _sakámá_, because the ascetic conquers the lower desire under the overpowering influence of the higher desire for liberation.]

[Footnote 92: I read _nirodhe_ for _nirodhah_ in p. 40, line 6; cf. p. 37, line 13. The causes of bondage produce the assumption of bodies in which future actions are to be performed.]

[Footnote 93: Literally "absence of _sanga_."]

[Footnote 94: In p. 41, line 7, read _sapta-bhangí-naya_, see Ved. S. Gloss., ii. 2, 23.]

[Footnote 95: I cannot understand the words at the end of the first line, _kim vritatadvidheh_, and therefore leave them untranslated.]

[Footnote 96: Thus Govindánanda applies it (_Ved. Sút._, ii. 2, 33) to "may be it is one," "may be it is many," &c.]

[Footnote 97: '[Greek: AkatalêpsiaAkatalêpsia]. This is Sriharsha's tenet in the _Khandana-khanda-khádya_.]

[Footnote 98: In p. 42, line 17, for _matenámisritáni_ read _matena misritáni_.]

[Footnote 99: In p. 43, line 2, for _na yasya_ read _nayasya_.]

[Footnote 100: This list is badly printed in the Calcutta edition. It is really identical with that given in Hemachandra's _Abhidhána-chintámani_, 72, 73; but we must correct the readings to _antaráyás_, _rágadwesháv aviratih smarah_, and _háso_ for _himsá_. The order of the eighteen _doshas_ in the Calcutta edition is given by Hemachandra as 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 7, 9, 17, 16, 18, 8, 6, 15, 13, 14.]

[Footnote 101: In p. 43, line 13, for _vartini_ read _vartinih_.]

[Footnote 102: This seems corrupt,--a line is probably lost.]

[Footnote 103: In last line, for _samsrave_ read _samvare_.]

[Footnote 104: Does this mean the knowledge of the world, the soul, the liberated and liberation? These are called _ananta_. See Weber's _Bhagavatí_, pp. 250, 261-266.]

[Footnote 105: _Sarajoharanáh_ is explained by the _rajoharanadhárin_ (= _vratin_) of Haláyudha, ii. 189.]

[Footnote 106: Cf. Wilson, _Essays_, i. 340. For _strím_ read _strí_.]

CHAPTER IV.

THE RÁMÁNUJA SYSTEM.

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