257

APPENDIX.

Page 4, line 5.

I have omitted here the verse from the Atharva-veda, xi. 7, 24 (quoted by Professor Goldstücker in his Panini, p. 70): Ṛichaḥ sāmāni chhandāmsi purānaṁ yajushā saha | uchchhishṭāj jajnire sarve divi devāḥ divisrităḥ"From the leavings of the sacrifice sprang the Rich- and Saman-verses, the metres, the Purāṇa with the Yajush, and all the gods who dwell in the sky."

Professor Aufrecht has favoured me with the following amendments in my translations in pp. 7 and 8:

Page 7, line 13.

For "the text called sāvitṛī [or gāyatrī]” he would substitute "the verse dedicated to Savitri."

Page 7, line 16.

For "the mouth of Brahma " he proposes "the beginning of the Veda." (Sir W. Jones translates "the mouth, or principal part of the Veda.")

Page 8, line 8.

For "from Vach (speech) as their world" he proposes "out of the sphere (or compass) of speech."

Page 8, line 8

For "Vach was his: she was created" he proposes "For in creating the Vedas, he had also created Vāch."

Page 8, line 13.

For "He gave it an impulse" he proposes "He touched it."

Page 8, line 16.

For "Moreover it was sacred knowledge, which was created from that Male in front" he proposes "For even from that Male (not only from the waters) Brahma was created first."

Page 9, line 16.

This passage of the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad corresponds to Satapatha Brahmana x. 6, 5, 5.

Page 10, line 2.

"May the brilliant deity," etc., Professor Aufrecht would prefer to translate the second line of the verse, beginning sudevaḥ (p. 9, 1. 6 from the foot), "Goodness (the good god) only knows where they put the earth which was thrown up (nirvapana).”

Page 20, line 17.

See Aśvalayanas Grihya Sūtras, pp. 155, and 157 ff.

Page 22, line 13, note 25.

I quote two verses from Manu, of which the second confirms the correctness of the rendering I have given of the words à ha eva sa nakhāgrebhyas tapyate, and the first illustrates the text of the Taittirīya Aranyaka cited in the note: Manu ii, 166. Vedam eva sadā 'bhyasyet tapas tapsyan dvijottamaḥ | vedābhyāso hi viprasya tapaḥ param ihochyate| 167. "A haiva sa nakhagrebhyaḥ" paranam "tapyate" tapaḥ yaḥ sragry api dvijo dhite svādhyāyam śaktito 'nvaham | "Let a good Brahman who desires to perform tapas constantly study the Veda; for such study is a Brahman's highest tapas. 167. That twice-born man who daily studies the Veda to the utmost of his power, even though (luxuriously) wearing a garland of flowers (really) performs the highest tapas to the very extremities of his nails." This verse, it will be observed, quotes verbatim one of the phrases of the Brāhmaṇa, and gives definiteness to its sense by adding the words paramam tapaḥ. Verses 165 ff. of the same book of Manu prescribe the abstemious mode of life which the student (brahmachārin) is to follow whilst living in his teacher's house. The Mahabharata, Udyoga-parvan, 1537, thus states the conditions of successful study in general; Sukhārthinaḥ kuto vidyā nāsti vidyārthinaḥ sukham |

sukharth và tyajed vidyam vidyarthì và tyajet sukham | “How can one who seeks ease acquire science? Ease does not belong to him who pursues science. Either let the seeker of ease abandon science, or the seeker of science abandon ease."

Page 30, line 17.

Compare the lines quoted by the Commentator on Sanḍilya's Bhaktisūtra, 83, p. 60, from the Mahābhārata, Santiparvan, Moksha-dharma, verses 13,551 ff.: Sahopanishado vedān ye viprāḥ samyag āsthitāḥ | pathanti vidhim asthāya ye chāpi yati-dharminaḥ | tato visishṭām jānāmi gatim ekāntinām nṛinām | "I regard the destination of Ekantins (persons devoted to the One as their end) as superior to that of Brahmans who perfectly study the Vedas, including the Upanishads, according to rule, as well as to that of those who follow the practices of ascetics (yatis).”

Page 34, line 1.

Perhaps this was scarcely a suitable passage to be quoted as depreciatory of the Veda, as in such a stage of transcendental absorption as is here described all the ordinary standards of estimation have ceased to be recognized.

Page 43, line 10.

With the expression hṛid-akāśa, "the æther of the heart," compare the passage quoted from the Veda in Sankara's commentary on Brahma Sūtra iii. 2, 35 (p. 873): "Yo 'yam vahirdha purushād ākāśo yo'yam antaḥ-purushe ākāśo yo'yam antar-hṛidaye ākāśaḥ "This æther which is external to a man, this æther which is within a man, and this æther which is within the heart." See also the Brihad Āranyaka Upanishad ii. 5, 10 and iii. 7, 12.

Page 44, line 1.

See the Yoga aphorisms i. 2 ff. as cited and explained by Dr. Ballantyne.' The second aphorism defines yoga to be "a stoppage of the functions of the mind" (Yogaś chitta-vṛitti-nirodhaḥ). "The mind then abides in the state of the spectator, i.e. the Soul" (tadā drashṭuḥ svarūpe' vasthānam-Aph. 3). "At other times it takes the form of the

1 Two fasciculi only, containing two Pādas and 106 Sūtras, were published at Allahabad in 1852 and 1853; but a continuation of Dr. B.'s work has been commenced in the "Pandit" for Sept. 1868.

functions" (vritti-sārūpyam itaratra-Aph. 4). These functions, or modifications (as Dr. Ballantyne translates) are fivefold, and either painful, or devoid of pain, viz. proof, or right notion (pramāna), mistake (viparyyaya), groundless imagination (vikalpa), sleep (nidrā), recollection (smṛiti) — Aphorisms 5-11. See also Dr. Ballantyne's Sankhya Aphorisms, iii. 31 ff.

Page 57, note 61.

With the subject of this note compare the remarks in p. 108, and the quotations from Dr. Roer and Professor Müller in pp. 173, 175,

and 193.

Page 62, note 65.

Professor Cowell does not think that the text is corrupt. He would translate it, "the other pramānas, beside sabda, (scil. perception and inference), cannot be even supposed in a case like this" (which refers to such a transcendental object as the existence of an eternal Veda). Sayana, in his reply to the objector, recapitulates the applicable proofs as śruti, smriti, and loka-prasiddhi,-all three only different kinds of testimony, sabda.

Page 63, lines 11 f., and note 68.

Compare pp. 322 f., 329 f., 334 f., and 337 of my article "On the Interpretation of the Veda," in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1866.

Page 84, note 89, and page 180, line 7.

I have been favoured by Professor Cowell with the following note on kalatyayapadishța:

"My Calcutta Pandit considered this fallacy to be the same as that more usually called bādha (cf. too Bhāshāparichchheda, śl. 70, 77, and the Bengali translation, p. 65). Its definition is pakshe sādhyābhāvaḥ. The Tarka-sangraha defines a hetu as badhita, 'when the absence of what it seeks to prove is established for certain by another proof,' as in the argument vahnir anushno dravyatvāt. The essence of this fallacy is that you deny the major, and therefore it does not matter whether you accept the middle term in itself or not. It is involved in the overthrow of the major term. I should translate it the 'precluded argument,' it might have been plausible if it had not been put out of court by something which settles

the point,-it is advanced too late (the pre in 'precluded' expresses the kālātīta of the old name). This corresponds to the account in the Nyāya-sūtra - vritti: Kālasya sādhana-kālasyātyaye 'bhāve 'padishṭaḥ prayukto hetur | etena sādhyābhāvapramālakshaṇurtha iti sūchitam | sādhyābhāvanirnaye sadhanāsambhavat | Ayam eva būdhitasādhyaka iti giyate. The Vritti goes on to say that you need not prove vyabhichāra (ie. that your opponent's hetu or middle term goes too far, as in parvato dhumavān vahneḥ where vahni is a savyabhichūro hetuḥ) in order to establish the budha. I should therefore prefer to translate the passage from the Vedartha-prakāśa, p. 84, 'your alleged middle-term vakyatva, the possessing the properties of a common sentence, is liable to two objections,—(1) it is opposed by the fact that no author was ever perceived, and (2) it also is precluded by weighty evidence (which proves that your proposed major term is irrelevant).' Sayana then adds his reasons for each objection,-for the first, in the words from yatha Vyāsa down to upalabdhaḥ; for the second, in the fact that smriti and śruti agree in the eternity of the Veda (the pūrvam I suppose refers to p. 3 of the Calcutta printed text), and that even if the Supreme Spirit be the author he is not purushaḥ in the sense in which the objector uses the term. Either way, the major term of the objector's syllogism paurusheya is precluded, bādhita; or, in the technical language of the Nyāya, Sāyaṇa establishes an absence from the minor term (paksha) of the alleged major term (sādhya); and hence no conclusion can be drawn from the proposed syllogism. I may add that I have also looked into Vatsyāyaṇa, but his explanation seems to me an instance of what my Pandit used so often to impress on me, that the modern logic (which such a late medieval writer as Sāyaṇa follows) is not always that of the Nyayabhashya. He makes the error lie in the example, i.e. in the induction; and it is therefore, as Professor Goldstücker says, a 'vicious generalization." "

Page 88, note 95.

Professor Cowell disagrees with the explanation I have hazarded of the object of the sentence in the text to which this note refers. He thinks that its purport, as shewn by the word vyabhichārāt, is to intimate that the former of the two alternative suppositions would prove too much, as it would also apply to such detached stanzas as the one