THE SARVA-SIDDHANIA SANGRAHA SANKARACARYA EDITED WITH AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF MADRAS. BY M. RANGACARYA, M,.A,, RaO BAHADUR, Paorgsson oF SANSKRIT ax ComPananive Putyorocy, Paestvency Contears Conaton, GoveRsuant ORIENTAL MaNuschrets LIBRARY; AND Rearsrear oF Books, Mannas, MADRAS: PRINTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT PRESB. 1909,PREFACE. Tue full name of this work, as may be made out from the colophons given at the end of the chapters and also from the last stanza of the last chapter in it, is Sarva- dar$ana-siddhanta-satgrahs, which obviously indicates it to be an epitome of the accepted conclusions of all the philosophic systems curvent in India at the time of its pro- duction. Nevertheless;.it appears to have been known by the comparatively shorter title’ of Sarza-siddhanta- sangraha also, as it is, for instance, found mentioned in the Praméanattirattu * of Manavalamamuni, a well-known religious teacher of the Sri. Vaisnavas of South India. In’ the catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the India Office Library in London, we find the work de- scribed under this shorter title. _ Accordingly this shorter title has been adopted ‘asthe name ofthe work in this edition. Evidently the name of the well-known Surra- duréana-satyraha of Saéyana Madhava is a somewhat different abbreviation of the title Sarva-darSuna-siddhanta- sangraha. Five manuscripts have been used in preparing the text for this edition of the Surva-siddhdntn-sangraha, * This Tamil name of the work means that it is collection of authorities. It is in fact aush @ collection, the authorities referred to in a famous commen- tory on Saint Sathakopa’s ‘Tarail psulms known us Tirwedymoli being therein quoted and traced to their sources,vi PREFACE, One of these, marked P, is a palm-leaf manuscript be- longing to the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library here in Madras. Another, marked M, belongs to the Oriental Library in Mysore, and was very kindly placed at my disposal by Mr. A. Mahadéva Sastrin, the Curator, of that Library. The third, marked V, is a copy of another original, transcribed for the Madras Government Oriental Manuscripts Library by Mr. S. P. V. Ranga- nathacirya, the proprietor of the Arsa Press at Vizagapatam. The fourth, marked C, is a palm-leaf manascript belonging to the Palace Library of H.H, the Maharaja of Cochin» it. was, through the kindness of the Muharaja, permitted to be placed at my disposal for some months. The &fth, marked T, belongs to the Travancore Palace Library; and it became available to me through the kinduess of Mr. V. P. Madhava Row, o..8., who was at the time Dewan of Travancore. Of these, P and M form the foundation of the text printed in this volume. Both these are full of lacune; but it has been fortunate that the lactinze in P could be mostly filled up with the aid of the material found-intact in M. In spice of its incompleteness due to the fact of its being abruptly brought to an end with the eighth chapter, the manuscript V proved to be of special value, for the reason that it contains acommentary. Similarly C also is incomplete, containing only the last five chapters of the work. The manuscript T is a frag- mentary one containing very little more than the chapters on the Vaisésihu and the Nyaya systems. Professor J. Eggeling, who appearsto beresponsible for the description of the manuscript of the Sarva-siddhanta- safigraha, under No. 2442, in the catalogue of the SanskritPREFACE vii Mauuseripts in the Library of the India Office in London, has therein stated that the work is “‘ (wrongly) ascribed to Sankaracarya.” What his reasons for this opinion are, is not evident. 11 relation to a work of this kind it is clearly not appropriate to rely largely upon style for a proof of its authorship. In fact in regard to the question of authorship the evidence from styl+ is always bound to be of an uncertain character, inasmuch ag one man’s esti- mate of a given style ueed not be the same as that of another man, and inasmuch as it is also well known that one and the same author may write in different styles either at the same time ur at different times. However, according to one of the readings, the twenty- first and the twenty-second stanzas in the first chapter may well seem to throw soe doubt on Sankaracarya’s authorship of this work. ‘hose two stanzas would run thus in accordance with that reading :— yalearaagearr aeaaieaa Saat | TRA THR, ZacHMSyTAT aed aafarearaimracargiataay | aah flaw ata Taga ATTA II ‘These slékas are not very clear and cannot be quite easily interpreted. But the occurrence therein of the name Saakara ana the reference toa bhagya by a Bhagavat- pada are almost certain at the first instance to make the reader think that probably the great Saikaracarya him- self is mentioned by name here, and that he could not possibly have spoken of himself as Bhagavutpdda. ‘Lhis difficulty is got over, if we observe that there is another reading Ag Yue in the place of grytotifeaT, aud that,viii PREFACE. in the commentary to be found in the manuscript V, this word Sunkara is interpreted to mean Siva. More- over this same commentary gives out that the Bhagavat- pada mentioned in this context is in fact Govinda, the well-known preceptor of the famous Sankaracarya.. wre: A aTETATST ee MTarIST:—this is how the expression is explained in the ‘commentary. In dealing with the first half of the second stanza given above, this commentary gives as introduction—awa James Ad gam saeTt aac Piaaftene. Similarly in relation.to the second half of the same stanza we find the intreductory rem ark—-JatqIHTTA apaararaniatare. There is forther the explanatory romark—TeaReATHey age atl erred Tah ASH: AAAs wards. According to this commentator, therefore, Govinda, the guru of Sankara- carya, must have writtena commentary on the Dévatakanda and another on the Jidnakanga of the one comprehensive Mimamsa-Sastra of twenty adhydyas. There is nothing improbable in this, for tradition ascribes very great learning to this Bhagavatpida Govinda. This same guru of Sankaracarya is known to be the author, for instance, of a work on Ydge known as Yéyatdravali.* Accordingly, in the light of this commentary, the two stanzas quoted above from the Sarva-siddhdanta-sangraha cannot throw any real doubt on Sankdracarya being its author. On the other hand they really tend to confirm his authorship in respect: of that work. © Vide No. 4357 in the Descriptive Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in 4he Government Oriental Menuscripts Librury at Madras.PREFACE, ix Moreover, it is highly improbable that this com- mentator could be ill-informed about the matter. The beginning of this commentary runs thus :— aitiigna aa: | sigteresarat aa SReetenomR wa TAF THAIS FIT | at 4 aIEs SARAH mestareahie aeraeRt TAT It anaes WTAE | AAMT J Fs a ITTAZ Ul araargrad: Sreaiazaieorr | TeeeUesc rea Aint Aaa Nt At the conclusion of the commentary, which, as already pointed out, extends, only up to the end of the system of Bhatta Komarila, wo have the following colophon :— af siisaiieaaa. aes - AAT waiwarae- eof HTEseT: ATA: TON TIARA TTHEMTLTATAT RET | alge cacied sara wraesETISTTEAS 1 It comes out from these extracts that Sesa Govinda is the name of the author of the commentary, that he was the son of a certain Sesa and a disciple of Madha- siidana Sarasvati, the author of the Advurta-siddhi, which is a famous polemical work on Adruita-véla@nta. That a pupil of such an ardent and highly learned follower of the teachings of Sankaraca ya as Madhusiidana Sarasvati should have been well informed about Bhagavatpidax PREFACE. @dvinda’s works, and also about the Sarvu-siddhaata- sangraha being a production of Sankaracarya, appears to me to be very much more than merely probable. it can be made out, I believe, that this commenta- tor Sosa Gévinda lived about 850 years ago. But it is, evident that even before his time the Survu-siddhaata- sangraha was known to be the work of Sankaracarya, for we find the already mentioned Srivaisnava teacher, Mana- valamamuni, quoting passages from this work in his Pra- manaitirattu with the remark aaearaage QTRTTNT: ; and this Manavalamamuni is considered to have lived in the concluding part of the fourteenth and the early part of the fifteenth century of the Christian era. Thus there is positive evidenee to show that for over five hundred years at least the Sarou-siddhdntu-suigraha has been known to be the work of Sankaracarya. Moreover, Madhava, the author of the Sarva-dursana-sangraha, appears to have been familiar with this work, although he does not mention it or its author by name in his Sarvu-daréana-sungraha. tn the portions dealing with the Oarvaka-darsana and the Buudldha-dargana in the Sarva-darsana-sungraha, there are afew stauzas quoted, which obviously belong to this Surva-siddhdnta-sangraha, ‘There is for instance the stanza— aAMe Fa Aareages HETIAT | afatlerdiarat sifaaia gee: This forms the penultimate §léka in the second chapter of the Surva-siddhanta-sangruha. In addition to quoting this opinion of Brhaspati, as given by another, the Sarnu-daréanu-sangraha quotes also passages directlyPREPAOL. xi from some work attributed to the same Brhaspati, wherein the above stanza occurs with its last quarter running as Alan arqiatian. In the Buuddhadarsana portion of the Sarva-darsana-sangraha, we find the stanza— qfimarryiaead age | aoe: aBifrtr wer eft fel areca: 1 This is found as the seventh stanza in the Yégacdra section of the fourth chapter of the Sarva-siddhanta- sangraha ; and here it is, as may be easily seen, in its proper context. From this-same Yégdcara section the fourth stanza again is quoted in the Sarva-darsana-san- graha. Besides these it contains the following stanza also, which is found in the Mdaithyamika section of the fourth chapter of the Serva-siddhdnta-sangraha : aEF raat ara: MeQTaT | quot aarregrea favs: STeAAS: Here again it may well be made out that this stanza can really be in its proper context in the latter work. Therefore it must be somewhat hard to deny that Madhava, the author of the Sarva-darsana-satigraha, was evidently familiar with the Sarva-siddhdnta-sangraha, and that he looked upon its contents as being sufficiently trustworthy to be quoted as an authority. Another point worthy of note in connection with the determination of the authorship of the Sarva-siddhanta- sangraha is that it contains no account of any system of thought which is positively known to be later in origin than the time of Sankaricarya. On the other hand, it caunot be difficult to see how all the systems summarisedxii PREFACE, in the Sarva-siddlanto-sangraha must have had their origin in days before Sankardcarya. If, nevertheless, the work is held by any one to be a forgery, that opinion has, as it is usual in all such cases, to be based upon some sort of alleged cunning on the part of a Hindu, forger, who, however, unlike all the other men of his tribe, has to be credited with the development of the historical sense so wel! in him that he could not betray his deceitful hand through chronological inconsistencies. There is also another item of internal evidence in the Sarva-sidahanta-satgraha, which lends further support to the view that Sankaracdrya must really have been its author. In the first half of the fifty-fourth stanza of the last chapter of this work, the author, wishing to say that the mavdmaya-kosa, or what is often called the mind- sheath of the soul, is sapported by the Supreme Soul, who is Existence-Knowledge- Bliss, mentions this Supreme Soul by the name of GGvinda. Although Govinda is one of the well-known names of Visnu, why the Supreme Soul should have been here designated by this particular name of Visnu requires some explanation. The reason for this seems to be none other than that Govinda hap- pens to have been the name of the guru of Sankaracarya. It is generally believed by almost all religious students in India that the guru always deserves to be worshipped like. God himself. 1n support of this there is the authority of this oft-repeated stanza :— TRH THE aT ASeAT: | eta ve ae Tea sf Fa: 1 The philosophy of the advaitins enables them to actually identify the guru with God : according to them thePEBFACB: xiii guru is not only to be honoured and worshipped like God, but has actually to be looked upon as being none other than God Himself. We therefore find Sunkara- carya giving at the beginning of his Vivékactga@mani the following manyala-Slola : aaraarMnst THT | wifes WATARS HRS TAFT II The identification of the guru with God is distinctly obvious in this stanza; and one may very well say that in Sankaracdrya’s Bhajagdvinda-siotra also such au identi- fication is very probably intended: That both Madhava and Saéyana have maintained this samo attitude of divine identity in relation to their guru, Vidyatirtha, is well known to all readers of their numerous and varied works. In proof of this the following stanza to be found at the beginning of Séyana’s commentary on the Ryveda, for instance, may be quoted : ara Preaftd dat at AeHsis aT A fT ane oy faeries Tt is therefore clearly intelligible why the Supreme Soul is designated by the name of Gévinda in the Sarva. siddhanta-satigraha: and this internal proof in the work itself is certainly such as is very woll calculated to show that Sankardcdrya must really have been its author. When the ascribed authorship of any old work is ques- tioned, it is not always easy to give more satisfactory evidence to establish that authorship than what has been found to be possible in this case: and it is not without value as evidence that all the manuscripts of the work that have been utilised for this edition ascribe itaxiv PREFAOB. authorship to Sahkaracirya. The cumulative effect of all that has been stated here regarding the authorship of the Sarna-siddhdnta-sangraha appears tome to make it unnecessary to doubt that its author is the celebrated Sankarasarya himself. Although there are here and there a few difficultly interpretable stanzas, the work is on the whole remark- able for its simplicity and freedom from the rancorous spirit of heated controversy. It is worthy of note that in the very first chapter of this work the oneness of the Mimémsa& as a Sastra--which extends over twenty adhydyas—is distinctly. recognised. Most students of the Védanta literature in Sanskrit know that this idea of oneness, commonly called s@straikya, has been a point of controversy between Advaitens and Visistadvaitins, since the days of Ramanujacarya, who, in commenting upon the first word in the very first aphorism in the Védanta-siitras, uses with effect the idea of such a Sastraikya to establish the accuracy of his own interpretation of that word. The importance attached by Ramaunjacirye and his followers to the idea of the Parva-mimamsé and the Uttara- mimamhsa being in fact one sastra is definttely recognised by Madhava in his Sarva-darsana-sangraha, Hence very probably the necessities of controversy led later on to the belief that the two Mimamsas were really two distinct Sastras : and attention has already been drawn to the fact that Madhava has not mentioned either the Sarva- siddhanta-sangraha or its author by name in the Sarva- dargana-sangraha, although, as we have seen, he must have been familiar enough with the contents of the Sarva-siddhinta-sangraha, From the standpoint of Hindu Védantie contro- versy, there is also another noteworthy feature in thePREFAOER. xv Sarva-siddhanta-saigraha. In this work we are given a Vyasa-mata as distinguished from the Védanta-muta. The former of these two matas is said to be based upon the religious and philosophic teachings contained in the Mahabharata, while the latter is declared to rest upon Bhagavatpada Govinda’s explanation of the Védanta-séiiras held to have been composed by Vyasa. It is to this ex- planation alone that Sankaracarya would evidently give the name of Védantu. Whether Krsna Dvaipaiyana Vyasa, the original author of the Mahabharata, is also the real author of the Védénta-satras is a question that need not be raised here. Indian tradition says that Vyasa is the author of both, and the Sarva-siddhdnta-sangraha has dis- tinctly adopted this tradition, Krsna, the son of Vasudéva and NDévaki, evidently claimed to have been the ‘ Maker of the Vélanta,’ as it comes out from a statement in the BhagavadyitaBqraeeqwaaa Wei (XV. 15). What this means also need uot he discussed here. Similarly we may ignore the perplexing personality of Badarayana as being either the same as, or another than, the traditionally accepted author of the Véddnta-sdirus. It for the time being we agree with the Narva-siddhanta-sangraha, we have to distinguish between a Bharata-mata of Vyasa and a Siitra-mata of Vyasa. Naturally then the question arises—-whether one and the same Vyasa did really teach two distinct matas. In this connection one is reminded of Dr. G. Thibaut’s viow that Sankardcarya’s interpreta- tion of the Védéuta-sitras is different from what they were meant. to teach by the Sétra-kdra himself. Dr. Thibaut has declared that “the philosophy of Sankara would on the whole stand nearer to the teaching of the Upanisads than the Sitrns of Badarayana.” I know that there are many who will strongly object to the implication here that thexvi PREFACE. teachings of the Satras cf Badarayana are different from the teachings of the Upanisads. Whether Badarayana faith- fully interprets the Jpunisads is indeed a very legitimate investigation to undertake. But it is clear enough that the aim of Badarayana was evidently the harmonisa-. tion of the teachings of the Mahabharata with the teach- ings of the Upanisads: and even so it cannot be held to be incontrovertible to say that he did not understand pro- perly the teachings of the Upanisads. That there is not even that amount of definiteness about the teachings of the Upumisads, as there is about the Véddntie teachings given in the Bhaguvadyild and insthe Wahabhdraia, is granted by many. It is therefore mo wonder that Sankaracdrya’s interpretation of the teachings of the Upanigads appears to certain competent scholars to be noticeably different from Badarayana’s interpretation of those same teach- ings. Sankaracirya himself says about the end of his short introduction in the Bhasya guy arand: adat Reramt wet armel Teasers waatfaam: ; and this sentence is certainly capable of making it appear that the aim of Sankaracirya was to try to evolve what he himself took to be the teachings of the Upunisads out of the Védanta-sitras of Badarayana—that is, to put into the Sédras what he himself understood to be the teachings of the Upanisuds. Even orthodox Advaitins seem to accept this view in a general sort of way, and there is a stanza attributed to Madhusiidana Sarasvati which gives a notably clover expression to it. The stanza is— a wi & sangre araga GAY at Fa | fara &: daria a grat aia gearsPREFAOE. xvii It is evident from this that it is granted by some Advaitins themselves that tho Védanta-sitras of Vyisa are not responsible for the whole of the philosophy of Sankara- carya: and one need not therefore be surprised when one sees them occasionally making a distinction between the sétra-kéra-mata and the bhasya-kéra-mata, The distinction between a Vydsa-mata and a Védanta-mata, as prought out in the Sarva-siddhanta-satgraha, is thus clearly confirmatory of the position of Dr. Thibaut in regard to what kind of Védanta-it is that is really repre- sented by the Védénta-suitrus:As he maintains, the whole question here is indeed:one of interpretation. What the philosophy of the Upanisvds is, is itself dependent upon interpretation, which again is, inits turn, dependent upon the interpreter’s religious and philosophical predilections. What that Védanta is, which was intended by Badarayana to be taught by means of his Sutras, is also dependent upon interpretation, although the interpreter’s predilections cannot naturally have here quite as much scope for their manifestation as in the work of outlining” the philosophy of the Upanisads. Such are some of the points which the Sarva-siddhauta- sangraha brings to notice. In afew places the translation has had to be more or less tentative, although the readings adopted in the body of the work have been chosen with considerable care. On the whole the translation is made to be as near to the original as possible, words and expressions introduced either for the sake of idiom or for the sake of clearness being invariably enclosed within brackets. This being the very first edition of the work as a whole, I am led to believe that scholars will not judge its shortcomings too severely, particularly because bviii PREFAOR. I feel that the work cannot fail to be of some interest to them. It only remains for me to express my thanks to all those who have helped me in connection with the publication of this work and its English translation. My thanks are particularly due to Pandits Vankatésvara Sdstrin and Sathakopacarya of the Government Oriental Manuscripts Library at’ Mudras, and to Mr, M, B. Varadarajaiyangar, 2:4. B.0., of Bangalore, and Mr. K. Krenaswimi Aiyangir, 6.a., of the Madras Christian College. Mapras, M. RANGACARYA. 18th June 19Q8.SARVA-SIDDHANTASANGRAHA. CHAPTER TI, UNTRODUCTORY. 1, (To that Being , who is variously understood by various philosophical controversialists in all (their several) systems of philosophy—to that same Being, who is indeed the one only Brahman to be realised in the Véddnta, we offer our worship. 2. The auxiliary limbs (Aviyax of the Védas), the secondary limhs ( Updigas thereof |, and the'supplementary Védas (Upavédas\ are all helpful to the Vides themselves... They form the sources of knowledge regarding duty (dharma), wealth (artha), desire (kdma), and final deliverance (mékga); and are fourteen in number. 3, Tho auxiliary limbs of the Vedas are the following six, viz., the science of accent aud phonoties (sitsa), grammar (*yakaruna), etymology and interpretation’ (mirukta), astronomy (sydtisa), ritual code (kalpa), and also prosody (chandéziesti). 4, The secondary limbs (of the Védas) are the following four, viz., Mimarined, Nydyusistra (tho science of reasoning), the Purdras, and the Smrtis: these are in fact (the indirectly connected) outer limbs of the Védas. 5. The supplementary Védas are of four kinds; and they are Ayurveda (science of meilicine), Arthavéda (science of wealth and government), Dhanureéda (archery and the science of war), and Gandharvavéda (the science and art of music). 6. Sikea (or the science of accent and phonetics) teaches clearly the distinctive characteristics of Vedic pronunciation. Grammar gives out the characteristics of words and their combi- nations,2 SAR V A-SIDDHANTA-SANGRAHA. 7. Tho science of etymology and interpretation clearly teaches the derivations of the words to be found in them (z.e., in the Védas). The science of astronomy mentions here (in relation to the Védas) the preserihed times for the performance of the: (various) rites enjoined in the Védas. 8. The ritual code gives out the details of procedure in relation to (these) rites. Similarly the science of prosody (chandéviciti) teaches the number of the matrds (moras) and syllables (to be contained in the various kinds of metrical stanzas), 9. The Mindinsd is devoted to the enquiry iuto the meaning and aim of all the Vé/as. The aphorisms of Nydya (the science of reasoning) deal with the characteristics of praména (an authoritative sourco of knowledge)"and such other things. 10. ‘the Purdpus supplement and amplify (the Védas with) such Véilic topics as belong to loat recensions of the Vedas; and in the form of stories relating to great men, they (‘.e., the Purdnas) urge on the pursuit of the true aims of life. \1. The Dharma-séstra regulates, by means of the classi- fication of right and wrong deeds as appertaining to the various classes of people and (their) stages of life, the duties to be performed (by all) iu life, and deserves to be aecepted und acted upon (by all). 12, By means of the sections.relating to the causes (of discases), to their symptoms uud remedial medicines (respectively), tho Ayurcéda points out what makes for length of life and for health: and accordingly it teaches all (persons) what they have to do (in order to live well). 13-14. The Arthaveda (the science of wealth and govern- ment) is devoted to (the study and examination of) that happiness which is consequent upon the (proper) distribution of food, drink, and such other things (among people). Among other things, by making availuble the daksind (i.e. the fee or any other gift to be given to olliciating priests and others in sacrifices), the djya (1.e., the clarified nutter to be used in sacrifices), the purdda-a (an oblation inthe furm of a cake made of ground rico cooked in an earthen dish), and the caw (an oblation of rice or barley boiled in milk and sprinkled over with ghee, etc.), as well as by safeguardingCHAPTER I—INTRODUCTORY. 3 them (from loss and destruction), it (viz, the Artharéda) is suited to bring about the fruition of thoso aims of life which make up the (well-known) collection of the four (well-known things). Here (in this world) the Dhanureéda leads to the overthrow of enemies. 15. The employment. of the seven notes of the gamut is in fact associntel with both the Sdma-vé/a anil the Gdndhuiva- véda (music); ant the combination of secular notes (us taught in the latter) is helpful to that of the Védie notes. 16-17. Thns it comes out that the (above-mentioned) limbs and secondary lambs (wf the Védas), as well as the supplementary Védas, ave all auxiliary and sub rdinate to the Védes themselves. Of these fourteen branches of-knowledge, the Mindinsd alone is the greatest. It consists of twenty ehaptors and is divided into two paris in accordance» with tle subject-matter dealt with therein, The Parva-windinsd di als with the subject of karma (or ritualistic works) and extends over twelve chapters 18. The sitras (or aptorisms) relating to this (Parea-mimdihed) have been composed by Jaiuini.. The commentary (thereon) is the work of Sabara. The Misdijisaeartika is the work of Bhatta, as it has indeed been composed bythe great teacher (Kumarila) Bhatta. 19. The teacher Prabhakara, though his (#e, Kumarila Bhatta’s) disciple. cstublishiet’on @ slight differonco of views a different school (of Prva-mimd.isd) from that of Sabara; and this is known as tho Prabhakara school, 20. The Uttara-nim@ isd on the other hand consists of eigh! chapters; and it is also divided into two paris under the head dealing (respectively) with deities and with the wisdom (of tr philosophy). Both these divisions of tho Uttura-mimaiueé hax alike had their si#/ras (aphorisms) composed by Vyasa. 21. In tho first four chapters here (in the Uttara-mimarisa) the deities referred to in the manéras are (given as) described by Saikarsana, For this reason it is called Déewld-kapda (i.e, the part dealing with the dvities). 22. A commentary (thereon) in four chapters has been com- posed by the venerable teacher. ‘The explanatory commentary *4 SARVA-SIDDHANTA-SANGRAHA. which he produced in relation to that (other part of the Uttara- mimdinad) is spoken of as Vedanta. 23. Akgapada (or Gotama), Kanada, and Kapila, and Jaimini,. Vyasa, and Patanjali—these authors of (philosophic) aphorisms are (all) believers in the Védas. 24. Brhaspati and the Arhata (Jina) and the Buddha are all opposed to the (religious) path of the Védas. In view of the (varying) fitness of individuals, all these have become expounders of authoritative systema (of religion and philosophy). 25. The Bauddhos, the Lékayatas (or the followers of Brhaspati) and the Jainas hold it as an established conclusion that the Védes are uot authoritative. ‘hey have to be refuted by means of logical reasoning by all'those who maintain the authoritativeness of the Vedas. Thus ends the first chapter—the Introductory one—in the Sarvaedarsana-siduhanta-saigrahd composed by the venerable Sankartearya.CHAPTNR It THE SYSIEM OF THE LOKAvaTIKAs, = _ 5 CHAPTER II. THE SYSTEM OF THE LOKAYATICAS. 1, According to the doctrine of the Lékéyatikas, the ultimate principles are merely the four elements, viz., earth, water, fire, and air, and there is nothing else. 2. Whatover is arrived at by means of direct perception, that alone exists. That which is not perceivable is non-existent, for the (very) reason that it is not perceived, And even those, who maintain the (roal existenoe of) wirséa (the unpereeivable), do not say that what has not been peresived has been perceived. 3. If what is rarely seen bere and there is taken to be the anperoeivable, how can thoy (really) call it as the unperosivable p How can that, which is always unseen, like the (ever unseen) horns of a hare, and other such things) be what is really oxistent 4. In consequencs of /(the existence of) pleasure aud pain, merit and demerit should aot be here (in this conuection) postulated by others. A ian feels pleasure or pain by nature, and there is no other cause (for it). 5. Who colours wonderfully the peacocks, or who makes the enekoos 000 80 well’ There is in respect of these (things) no cause other than nature 6. The dtman (or self) is the hody itself, which is characterised by such attributes as are implied in the expressions—‘ I am stout’, ‘Tam young’, ‘Iam old’,‘I am an adult’, ete. It is nothing elso which is distinct from that (body). 7. That intelligence, which is found to be embodied in the (various) modified forms consisting of the non-intelligent ole- ments—(that) is produced in the samo way in which red colour is produced from the combination of betel, areca-nut and lime. 8. Higher than tiis world there is none. There is no svurye (or celestial world of enjoyment) and no hell. The world of Siva and other such (worlds) are all invented by those who are6 SARVA-SIDDHANTA-SANGRAHA. (followers of) other (systems of thought) than (what is followed by) ourselves and are (therefore) ignorant impostors. 9. The enjoyment of svarga consists in partaking of sweet food here, in enjoying the company of damsels of sixteen years of age, and also in enjoying the pleasures that are derivable from the use of fine clothes, sweet scents, flower gariands, sandal, and such other things (of delicions luxury). 10. The experience of (the miseries of) hell consists (only) in the pain caused by enentics, by injurious weapons, by diseases aad other causes of suffering. The final beatitude of mdksa is, however, death (itself); and that consists in the cessation of (breath: the principal vital air. Ll, Therefore it is not proper-on the part of a wise man to take (any) trouble on account of this (final beatitude). It is only a fool that becomes thin and worn oat to dryness by performing penanees, and by fasting, cf. 12—15}. Chastity and other sach (cunning) conventions have been invented by clever weaklings,, Gifts of gold and of lands, ete., the enjoying of sweet dinnors on/invitation, aro all the devices of persous who are poor and have stomachs that are (ever) loan with hunger. With respect totemples, houses for the distribution of drinking wutor to travellers, tanks, wells, pleasure-gardens, and other such devises—only travellers praiso them daily, (but) not others. Tho ritual of Agnihétra, the three Védas, the (asc:tio’s) triple staff, tho s nearing of one’s self with ashes aro all (merely) means of livolihood to those who are .estituto of intelligence and energy: so opines Brhaspati. By adopting only those means which are seen (to be practical) such as agriculture, the tending of cartle, trade, politics and administration, ote., ® wise man should always (endeavour to) enjoy pleasures (bere) in this world. Thus ends the second chapter, known as the system of the Lokayatikas, in the Surva-darsanu-siddhdnta-sungraha composed by the venerable Saikaricarya.CHAPTER I—THE SYSTEM OF THE ARHATAS OR JaINas. = 7 CHAPTER III. THE SYSTEM OF THE ARHATAS OR JAINAS. 1. The doctrine of the Lokdyatilas is liable to be objected to by all (other) philosophical controversialists. Now the Jaina, by (enunciating) his own doctrine, refutes their doctriae (thus). 2. Uhe heat of fire, the eold of watur, the sweet sound of the cuckoos, and sucb other things happen to be (duc to) the invariable nature (of those things); aud (they) are not auythiag else 38. Pleasure and } ain, which are transient, cannot be considered to constitute the neture (of the Gfman (self). By means of these two (viz., pleneire and pain), and demerit are deter- mived to be the self’. «/rsf# (or invisible results of works done in former states of re-in sarnationy! 4. The fault (in reasoning) pointed out by you (the Lokdyutska), to the effect that, if what is unscen is in any way taken to be seen, tien the unseen ceass to be the unseen, does not affect me (the Jaina), inasmuch as that (unseen) is established for me by means of the scripture. 5. And surely the interence of fire from smoke has been approved of by you also, who, on soeing the smoke, run near (to where it is) for the ymrpose of getting at the invisible fire. 6, Those persons who take their stand on the scriptures of the Tainas, come to know clearly (bath) the seen and the unseon by such means as perceytion, inference, aud seripture. 7. Human beings are of three kinds, namely, the perfected beings, the beings in (mundane) bondage, and the sufferers in hell. Some are (by their own nature) the. highest of perfected8 SARVA-SIDDHANTA-SANGRAHA. beings, (while) others (become so) with the aid of mantras (mystic magical formulas) and the power of sovereign herbs. 8. ‘To any one in this world, who has adopted renunciation, freedom from (mundane) bondage results through the united operation of knowledge and works in the manner taught by the (great) spiritual preceptor. 9. Bondage in the case of the Arhatas ia that obstructive veil covering the knowledge of all things, which is (in the case of all of them) produced by the bodies acquired by them in consequence of (their) karmas (or the impressed effects of actions done in previous states of re-incarnation). And final liberation consists in the souls having no (such) veil of obstruction. 10. All bodies, with their orgaus.(of sense, etc.) are made up of ultimate atoms, otherwise known as pudgalas, which follow (in the wake of) the merit and demerit (ot beings). 11. ‘The selves, which exist in the cages consisting of the bodies of creatures, beginning with worms and insvots and ending with elephants, are of the size of their reapective bodies; and they are attached to their bodies by reason of (their) ignorance. 12. In regard to the body, which is itself an obstructive cover- ing for the aman, there need not be any other covering such as a cloth, etc. ; for, if such (a covering) is admitted (to be required), then in regard to this also (another covering will have to be admitted) ;- and there will thus result the logical fallacy of a regressus in infinitum. 1d. The ydgins (oy the true seers of the self) do not cause pain to (any being in) tho whole collection of living beings, in thought, or word, or deed; (they) assuredly move about as sky- clad (or naked) persons leading the life of eolibacy. 14. They (carry) the feathers of peacocks in their hands, and ave accomplished in adopting the various postures (prescribed for yogic meditation), such as the ‘ posture of the hero’, etc. They eat out of the ‘vessels’ consisting of (their own) hands, and have their hairs cut, and are engaged in silent meditation. 15-15}. ‘hese sages are tree from stains and are pure, and {are wble to) destroy the multitude of sins appertaining to