[Footnote 69: These (by Hemach. _Abhidh._ 21), possess only one sense--touch. In p. 35, line 10, I read _sa?khaga??olakaprabh?itayas trasas chaturvidha? p?ithivyaptejo_.]

[Footnote 70: In p. 35, line 16, I read _tesham ajivatvat_ for _tesha?

jivatvat_. 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 _sarvatravasthite_ for _sarvatravasthiti_. In the preceding line I read _alokenavachchhinne_ for _alokenavichchhinne_.]

[Footnote 72: Cf. Siddhanta-muktavali, p. 27. The _vishaya_ is _upabhoga-sadhanam_, but it begins with the _dvya?uka_. This category takes up the forms of _sthavara_ which were excluded from _jiva_.]

[Footnote 73: It is an interesting ill.u.s.tration how thoroughly Madhava for the time throws himself into the Jaina system which he is a.n.a.lysing, when we see that he gives the Jaina terminology for this definition of _dravya_,--cf. _Vaisesh. Sutra_, i. 1, 15. _Paryaya_ is explained as _karman_ in Hemach. _Anek_. _Paryaya_, 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, _paryayo 'nukrama? krama?_.]

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

[Footnote 75: In line 18, read _asrava?akara?atvad_.]

[Footnote 76: The _jnana_ 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 Govindananda's gloss, _Ved. Sut._, ii. 2, 33.]

[Footnote 78: The Calcutta MS. reads _adara?iyasya_ for _avara?iyasya_, in p. 37, last line. But _avara?iya_ may be used for _avarana_ (_Pa?._ iii. 4, 68). Cf. _Yoga Sut._, ii. 52, where Vyasa's Comm. has _avara?iya_.]

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

[Footnote 80: Umasvami-?]

[Footnote 81: For the _sagaropama_, see Wilson's _Essays_, vol. i. p.

309. In p. 38, line 16, I read _ityadyuktakalad urdhvam api_ for the obscure _ityadyukta? kaladurddhanavat_. I also read at the end of the line _prachyuti? sthiti?_ for _prachyutisthiti?_.]

[Footnote 82: In p. 38, line 18, read _svakaryakara?e_.]

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

[Footnote 84: In p. 39, line 6, I read _apadyeta_ for _apadyata_.]

[Footnote 85: In p. 39, line 9, for _sesha?a_ read _saisha?a_.]

[Footnote 86: In p. 39, line 12, join _nirjantu_ and _jagat.i.tale_.]

[Footnote 87: Madhava omits the remaining divisions of _sa?vara_.

Wilson, _Essays_, vol. i. p. 311, gives them as _parishaha_, "endurance," as of a vow; _yatidharma_, "the ten duties of an ascetic, patience, gentleness," &c.; _bhavana_, "conviction," such as that worldly existences are not eternal, &c.; _charitra_, "virtuous observance."]

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

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

[Footnote 90: In p. 39, line 2 _infra_, I read _yathakala-_ for _yatha kala-_.]

[Footnote 91: This pa.s.sage is very difficult and not improbably corrupt, and my interpretation of it is only conjectural. The ordinary _nirjara_ is when an action attains its end (like the lulling of a pa.s.sion by the gratification), this lull is temporary. That _nirjara_ is "ancillary" which is rendered by asceticism a means to the attainment of the highest good. The former is _akama_, "desireless,"

because at the moment the desire is satisfied and so dormant; the latter is _sakama_, 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 a.s.sumption 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-bha?gi-naya_, see Ved. S.

Gloss., ii. 2, 23.]

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

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

[Footnote 97: '??ata????a. This is Sriharsha's tenet in the _Kha??ana-kha??a-khadya_.]

[Footnote 98: In p. 42, line 17, for _matenamisritani_ read _matena misritani_.]

[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 _Abhidhana-chintama?i_, 72, 73; but we must correct the readings to _antarayas_, _ragadweshav avirati? smara?_, and _haso_ for _himsa_. 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 _vartini?_.]

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

[Footnote 103: In last line, for _sa?srave_ read _sa?vare_.]

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

[Footnote 105: _Sarajohara?ah_ is explained by the _rajohara?adharin_ (= _vratin_) of Halayudha, ii. 189.]

[Footnote 106: Cf. Wilson, _Essays_, i. 340. For _strim_ read _stri_.]

CHAPTER IV.

THE RaMaNUJA SYSTEM.

This doctrine of the arhatas 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 Ga?esa and of the incarnation of Vish?u 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 _bha?gas_ (arhata tenets).

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

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

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