of the Samkhya are not ascertained. It is, however, known that there were, in the course of time, many different opinions in both systems.

V. THE AUTHOR

According to Kwhei-ci's statement, a later follower of the Vaiseṣika, or an eminent teacher among the teachers of the eighteen schools, was Chan-ta-lo. Chan-ta-lo is rendered in Chinese by Hwui-yueh, literally "WisdomHe wrote the Shi-cü-i-lun (Dasa-padartha

moon". śāstra).1

Chan-ta-lo is the trans-
Candra, as the original

This is the present author. literation of Candra in Sanskrt. of "Wisdom-moon", seems to show an omission. Later commentators give the full name, "Chan-ta-(lo-)mo-ti (Candra - mati)," but Mati - candra is preferable to Candra-mati.

Shan-co

He has an epithet, Shan-cö, before his name. literally means an excellent teacher" or a conqueror", and may be the translation of Vaiseṣika in the sense of a follower or a teacher of the Vaiseṣika. 'An excellent teacher" (or "a conqueror") as an epithet can be applied to any other eminent teacher, and does not especially denote a follower of a definite system. In this case the term "excellent" or "superior", as the translation of Vaiseṣika, may also not be preferable.

The life of the author is not known from Kwhei-ci's statement, and the time when he lived is uncertain. But Dharma-pala's refutation of the Vaiseṣika is directed against the doctrines of the six categories as stated above. If this fact implies that the author is later than

1 Loc. cit., pp. 29b, 376b.

2 Cf. Rajendralala Mitra, Notices of Skt. MSS. (Calcutta, 1886). vol. viii, pp. 80-1; Bhandarkar, A Catalogue of the Collections of MSS. (Bombay, 1888), p. 61; Hara-prasad Sastrī, Notices of Skt. MSS., vol. x. p. 149.

Dharmapāla, his date is between Dharma-pāla and Yuan Chwang.

According to Yuan Chwang's Si-yü-ci1 Śila-bhadra was, when he was studying with Dharma-pāla, 30 years old, and he was 106 years old when Yuan Chwang met him.? Yuan Chwang started from China in 629 A.D., and arrived at Rāja-gṛha, and saw him in 633 A.D.3 So Dharma-pāla was still living in 557 A.D. Consequently the terminus a quo of Mati-candra is 550 A.D., and the terminus ad quem is 640 A.D. This date is also confirmed by that of Prasasta-pāda. Praśasta-pāda is undoubtedly a predecessor of Mati-candra, and lived in the first half of the sixth century or the latter half of the fifth century, as proved later on. Mati-candra cannot be earlier than the first half of the sixth century.

5

VI. THE TREATISE AND ITS COMMENTARIES

The most obvious characteristic of the treatise is that it acknowledges ten categories, adding the four potentiality (śakti), non-potentiality (aśakti), commonness (sāmānya-viśeṣa), and non-existence (abhāva or asat) to the six in V.S. and Pr. Bh. The explanations and the source of the four categories will be found in the following translation and notes. And the treatise has no mention of Iśvara, as in the case of V.S.; there is also no description of the way to emancipation (mokṣa); even if the second sort of merit (dharma, one of the twenty-four attributes) corresponds to it, it is only a definition of it. As a

1 No. 1503, vol. viii, p. 40a. 3 No. 1637, vol. xii, p. 84a.

2 No. 1493, vol. iv, p. 105b.

According to Kwhei-ci's commentary on No. 1197 Dharma-pāla died in the 32nd year of his age, though the tradition is a little different from the Tibetan tradition mentioned in Tara-natha's Geschichte des Buddhismus (pp. 161-2), which is later and less reliable. And Dharmapāla is said to have been one year younger than Sila-bhadra; hence he lived in 539-70 A.D.

5 This is known from the fact that the treatise bases its explanations upon the Prasasta-pāda-bhāṣya (Pr. Bh.) in many passages, as shown in the following notes.

consequence, the author does not allude to yoga, yogin, or anything supernatural. The description in general is throughout concise and has no superfluity or digression.

No commentaries on the treatise were composed by Chinese Buddhists; but later Japanese writers composed the following:

1. Shōshujikkugiron-ki, 2 vols., by Hō-jiū, 1758 a.d. 2. Kwachu-shōshūjikkugiron, 1 vol., by Ko-katsu, 1760. 3. Kwachū-shōshūjikkugiron, 1 vol., enlarged by Son-kyō.

4. Shōshūjikkugiron-shaku, 2 vols., by Ki-ben, 1779. 5. Shōshūjikkugiron-shiki, 2 vols., by Gon-zō, c. 1783. 6. Shōshujikkugiron-kecchaku, 5 vols., by Kai-dō, 1796. 7. Shōshujikkugiron-sōrin, 1 vol., by Kai-dō, c. 1796. 8. Shōshujikkugiron-shaku-bōkwanroku, 1 vol., by Kō-gon, undated, refuting No. 4.

9. Jikkugiron-monki, 1 vol., by Hō-un, 1844, depending upon No. 6.

10. Jikkugiron-kōgi, 1 vol., by Kō-hō, 1898, paraphrasing No. 6.1

VII. THE SUTRAS OF THE SIX SYSTEMS

The dates of the founders and the sutras of the six systems have been discussed by eminent scholars; but for the present study the dates of the founders and those of the sutras must be treated as separate problems, because most of the founders are mystical personages and their traditional dates are very vague, while the

1 These commentaries are rare even in Japan, except Nos. 3, 9, 10. The present writer has been able to consult the last two. No. 6 is said to be the best; but there are many cases of misreading and misunderstanding. All the commentaries depend upon Kwhei-ci's paraphrasing and other sub-commentaries on Kwhei-ci's commentary, etc. After Kwhei-ci the Fa-hsiang-tsung was not much studied; some texts were lost and corrupted. The third patriarch of the sect, C'-ceu (Chi-shu, the seventh-eighth century), misunderstood some passages of the treatise owing to the corruptions of the text. These corruptions and misunderstanding caused the mistaken explanations in the above commentaries.

dates of the sutras cannot possibly be so remote. Jacobi maintains that the Nyaya-darsana and the Brahmasūtra were composed between 200 and 500 A.D. The Vaisesika-darsana and the Mimamsa-sutra are about as old as, or rather somewhat older than, N.D. and B.S. The Yoga-sutra is later than 450 A.D. and the Samkhyasutra is a modern composition.1

As a matter of fact, the compilation of the sutras fixes the doctrines of the systems; but before the compilation there must have been, to some extent, a systematization of the doctrines. Therefore, even if the above opinion, which is admirably founded, is quite acceptable, it naturally does not mean that there were no rudiments or no earlier stages of the development of the doctrines. In this sense the traditional founders and the real compilers of the sutras, cannot be the same persons. For a historical study the question may be divided into two parts. The question of the founders resolves itself into the question of the origins of the systems, and the dates of the sūtras relate to the development of the doctrines. Especially if the study is of another work than the sūtra of a system, researches into the historical development are necessary. In the course of the following introduction the present writer will try to study the origin, the systematization, and some aspects of the historical development of the Vaiseșika. Before entering into the questions some digressions may be permitted.

VIII. THE VAISESIKA SUTRA AND ITS COMMENTARIES

The historical development of the Vaiseșika and the Nyaya has been discussed by Bodas in his introduction to Athalye's edition of the Tarka-samgraha. It contains reliable information, and has been quoted by eminent

I JAOS., vol. xxxi, 1911, p. 29. During that period (200-500) lived the old commentators: Vätsyāyana, Upa-varsa, the Vṛtti-kāra (Bodhāyana?), and probably Sabara-svāmin.

2 Bombay S.S., No. lv.

scholars (Max Müller, Jacobi, and Suali). The Vaiseṣika can be treated from the historical point of view, like other systems; but there is, as Bodas pointed out, a gap in the history between the time of Praśasta-pāda (or Uddyotakara) and that of Sridhara (991 A.D.). The treatise was produced during that interval, and has not yet been influenced by theories of the Nyaya. But, having followed Pr. Bh., it differs from V.S. in certain opinions and takes the lead of the modern Vaiśesika works. The modern Vaiseṣika has, to speak roughly, two sources. The one is Pr. Bh. and the other is N.S. and its Bhasya by Vātsyāyana. The latter explained some of the Nyāya theories by the Vaiseṣika and mixed them up, while the former contended for the special theories and in some measure changed the original theories. Some of these special theories were accepted not only by the treatise, but also by the later commentators on V.S.

V.S. had and has at least the following commentaries : Kāvaṇa-bhāṣya, Vrtti, Upaskāra, Bhāradvāja-vṛtti

4

bhāṣya, Vivṛti, and Bhāṣya.

Śrīcaraṇa in his Prakaṭārtha says that some of the Vaiseṣika doctrines discussed by Sankarācārya in his

1 Pr. Bh. (Vizianagram S. S., vol. iv), Introd., p. 12; Kiraṇāvalī (Benares S.S., No. 15), Introd., p. 12; Candra-kānta-bhāṣya (Calcutta, 1887), Introd., p. 1; Ratna-prabhā, by Govindānanda, 2, 2, 11.

2 Pr. Bh., p. 12; Kir., p. 12; Nyāya-kośa, p. 4.

3 By Sankara-miśra and by Jaya-nārāyaṇa, published in Bibl. Ind. by

the latter.

5

+ By Gangadhara-kaviratna-kavirāja (Calcutta, 1869).

By Candra-kanta (Calcutta, 1887).

The authors of the last three commentaries lived in the last century. Besides these commentaries there are Raghu-deva's Vyākhyāna, Candrānanda's Bhāṣya, Bhāṣya-ratna, and Țikā (Aufrecht's Cat. Cat., iii, p. 128, and Hṛṣīkeśa Sastrī's Cat., iii, No. 369). Candrānanda's Bhāṣya is said by Kielhorn to be complete, while the other three are incomplete. It is not known whether they are good commentaries or not. As to the first and the second in Aufrecht's Cat. Cat., i, p. 615, it cannot be ascertained whether they are really commentaries on the sūtra. Cf. Oppert's Lists, ii, p. 62, No. 1041. Pr. Bh. is not a commentary on V.S., and it is called the Padartha-dharma-samgraha.