commentary, page 104, gives a quotation from Asuri on a vital question of the system and Pañcasikha has been several times quoted in the Vyasa Bhāṣya on the Yogasūtras.

Isvarakṛṣṇa gives us another piece of information that with the exception of the stories (in support of the Samkhya Theory) and with the exception of the refutation of other systems his seventy Kārikās will give all that is to be found in the Saștitantra. So there was a work entitled Saṣṭitantra, in which, not only were the Samkhya doctrines elaborated, but stories were given and refutations of other systems. But we know nothing more about the Şaşṭitantra except a quotation in Gauḍapāda's commentary from that work and a summary of its contents in the Pañcaratra work entitled Ahirbudhna-samhita. There is however a body of sutras divided into six chapters entitled Samkhya-Pravacana and commented upon by a scholar named Vijñāna Bhikṣu in the eleventh century, which contains a chapter on Akhyāyikās (stories) and another on refutations. Cannot this Samkhya-Pravacana be the Saṣṭitantra ? But we know nothing of the Sastitantra beyond the only quotation and the enumeration of topics just referred to and the name which means "sixty topics" differently explained by different commentators. Was the Sastitantra in a sutra form? We do not know. But the Pravacana is in sutras. That the Pravacana is not the original Şaşṭitantra is proved by its inclusion of a good many modern ideas. For instance, it calls the Advaita System by the name of Advaita, so it is not Saștitantra. It quotes the opinion of Pañoasikha, so it cannot be the original sūtras of Kapila. All that can be said about its authenticity is that it is based upon Saṣṭitantra, but has been altered and interpolated beyond recognition. But what is the authority of Isvarakṛṣṇa? Does he follow an old tradition or does he give new interpretations to the Samkhya doctrine prevailing in his time? He simply says that all that is to be found in the Saṣṭitantra is also to be found in his seventy Karikās. This shows that he does not introduce any novelty but only follows an old tradition, and from whom does that tradition derive

its authority? The question is rather difficult to be solved for want of materials. I found, however, after a good deal of search, a manuscript of the Kārikās at the Jaina Upāśraya named Śrípūjya in the city of Bikaner in which the Kārikās are described as Mathara Bhasya. From that I inferred that there was a body of Samkhya sūtras on which Mathara wrote a Bhāṣya and that Isvarakṛṣṇa simply followed him. Curiously enough, Gunaratna in enumerating the works of Sankhya literature says,Samkbyanām tarkagranthaḥ Saṣṭitan troddhararupam Māṭhara bhāṣyam Samkhyasaptatināmakam,—

which accords perfectly with the ideas I imbibed at Bikaner. But before that I several times read that passage but could not understand it, as the Italian editor of Gunaratna bas put commas after "Saṣṭitantroddhāra pam" and after Maṭharabhāṣya. I was led to think that Gunaratna speaks of three works. But Maṭharabhāṣya is not the seventy Kārikās. It has a separate existence, as Gunaratna quotes in page 96. तदुक्त माठरप्रान्त - प्रान्त being a misprint for ग्रन्थ ) हस पिवलल खाद पिव नित्य

भुंक्ष्य च भोगान् यथाभिकामं ।

यदि विदितं ते कपिलमतं

aą greifa maŝtenfaty ||

Professor Sylvain Levi tells us from Chinese sources that there were three learned men at the Court of Kāņişka at the end of the first century A.D., (1) Asvaghosa was his Guru, (2) Mathara, his prime-minister and (3) Caraka his chief physician. I am tempted to identify the Bhāṣyakāra Māṭhara with the prime-minister, because the other two of his contemporaries were both experts in the Samkhya. He also presumably was an expert too, and prime-ministers in ancient days were not averse to writing exhaustive and comprehensive works. But the great difficulty is to fix the individuality of the authors because Mathara and Caraka are Gotra names.

The question of the derivation of the word "Samkhya' was a difficult one. I did not understand whyt he system of Kapila should be named Samkhya. When asked, the pandits generally give a couplet in explanation which runs thus:—

संख्यां प्रकुर्वते यस्मात् प्रकृतिञ्च प्रचक्षते ।

acana a agfa'ng aenną aten: gcdfa'at: 11.

Evidently the word "Samkhya" means number, enumeration. But the pandits invariably explain it by Vivekakhyāti, the differentiation between the spirit and the matter, Prakṛti and Purușa. But Professor Garbe boldly translated the word as Enuineration and called the Samkhya System as the Enumerative System and not the Hylotheistic System as translated by Hall. That gave me some food for thought It occurred to me that Kapila tried to fix philosophical ideas by numbers and my readings in the later Vedic literature confirmed me in my idea. I found that the Vedic writers were not very definite at their numbers. In enumerating the organs of sense they were not very definite about the number five. They would often say, Caksu, Śrotra, Ghrāṇa, Prāṇa, Vāk, etc. So also in the case of vital airs. They would sometimes say Prāņa and Apāna; sometimes they would include Vyana but rarely they would speak of the five vital airs. So I began to think that Kapila did a great service to Indian thought by fixing philosophical ideas by numbers. I found Buddha also did the same. He also fixes his ideas by numbers, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path to Arhatship and so on, and Buddha was a follower of Kapila. Mahāvīra also did the same and I am inclined to think that all the six heretical schools also followed the same method. All the ancient writers of India were, in this matter at least, the disciples of Kapila till Kanāda introduced a higher method of philosophizing, namely that of finding Sadharmya and Vaidharmya, similarity and dissimilarity, and it took several centuries to rise from enumeration to comparison. Comparison led to classification in which the earlier writers were very d ficient.

In examining another section of Samkhya literature I found a confirmation of my ideas about numbers and this is what I am now going to give in detail. Outside the sutras of the SamkhyaPravacana and outside the seventy Kárikás, there is a small body of sutras going under the name of Kapila. Their number is not fixed, sometimes 25, sometimes 24, sometimes 23 and sometimes 22. In one work this body of sutras is embodied in a small work written in the form of a Brahmana, in another in a work in the form of a Vedic sutra: sometimes the sutras are commented upon in the ordinary way. But the essential element in all these small books is the body of the sutras. This body of sūtras has been examined by many eminent scholars, Colebrooke, Fitzedward Hall, Ballantyne, Rājā Rājendralāl and others, and they seem to agree that their number should be 22. Colebrooke thinks that this is the oldest form of Samkhya sūtras. Fitzedward Hall thinks they are an abstract of the Samkhya-Pravacana. But I find that the great majority of the 22 sutras has a number attached to it, such as—

प्रकृतयः ।

चौड़शविकाराः । त्रैगुण्यसञ्चारः । पञ्च कर्मयोनयः । पञ्च वायवः । पञ्च कत्मानः । etc., etc.,

and so on, 16 out of 22 are only enumeratious. This is really, then, the essence of the enumerative system. The sutras are perfectly unsectarian and therefore very ancient.

The manuscript No. 9561 of the Government Collection in the Asiatic Society of Bengal names the work as Kapilasüttravṛtti and says in the Preface :महर्षिर्भगवान् कपिलो द्वाविंशतिसूत्रान्युपालिखत् । सूचनात् सूत्रमिति हि व्युत्पत्तिः । ततश्च तैस्त-त्वानां सकलपटितन्त्रार्थानां सूचना भवति । इतश्वदं सकतसांख्य तीर्थभूतं तीर्थान्तराणि चैतत् प्रपञ्चभूतान्येव । सूत्रपड़ध्यायी तु वैश्वानरावतारभगवत् कपिलप्रणीता । इयन्तु द्वाविंशतिसूवी तस्यापि वोजभूता । नारायण महर्षिभगवत्प्रणीतेति वृद्धाः ||

Thus the anonymons writer of the commentary thinks that these twenty-two sutras are the root of the entire Samkhya

system, and he says that the Samkbya-Pravacana is the work of another Kapila who was the incarnation of the God of Fire. But the seed of the Pravacana is to be found in these twentytwo sutras, which were composed by Kapila, an incarnation of Nārāyaṇa and he appeals to Vṛddhaḥ, that is, to a tradition for his authority.

These are in brief all the facts relating to the original works of Samkhya philosophy that are known, and their chronology is of vital importance. As regards the later commentaries, their dates can be easily settled. The dates of Gauḍapáda (c. 700750), Vācāspati Miśra (c. 950-1000), Vijñānabhikṣu (eleventh century), Bhāvā Ganesa, a disciple of Vijñānabhikṣu, Mahādeva Vedanti (sixteenth century) are either well known or can be easily settled.

The chronology of the original works is very difficult to settle. I now give my own ideas for whatever they are worth. I think that Kapila wrote his sūtras, 22 in number, for the benefit, either of Asuri, his brother and disciple, or for an unknown Brahmin in the latter part of the Vedic period, before the Svetasvataropaniṣad or the Kathopanisad were composed. That the Enumerative School was adopted by all schools of thought, orthodox Brahmins, Buddhists, Jainas, Ājivakas, Lokāyatas and others. As the sutras were perfectly unsectarian, the different schools put their own interpretations on them and made them to serve their own purpose. The Brahmins wrote a comprehensive body of the sutras based on these, not only one body of sütras, but I believe, there were many such bodies of sūtras; for, Gauḍapada in his commentary quotes a sūtra which is not to be found in the SamkhyaPravacana, which consists of 553 sutras, but he says it belonged to the Saştitantra. Buddhism and Jainism are simply expansions of Kapila's ideas but it is wonder of wonders that we still get manuscripts of the original sutras of Kapila, though often in a modified and mutilated form.

The existence of the two bodies of sutras, the SāmкhyaPravacana and the Kapila sutras exercised the minds of