Mr. Colebrooke on the Fhilosophy of the Hindus. 9 



of which is the Upades! a-sahasri, a metrical summary of the doctrine 

 deduced by him from the Upanishads and Brahma-sutras, in his commenta- 

 ries on those original works. The text of the Upadesa-sahasri has been 

 expounded by more than one commentator; and among others by Rama 

 tirt'ha, already noticed for his comment on the Sancshepa-sdriraca. His 

 gloss of the Upadesa-sahasri is entitled Pada-yqjanicd. 



Elementary treatises on the Veddnta are very abundant. It may suffice 

 to notice a few which are popular and in general use, and which have been 

 consulted in the preparation of the present essay. 



The Veddnta-paribhdshd of Dharma-raja dicshita explains, as its title 

 indicates, the technical terms of the Veddnta ; and, in course of doing so, 

 opens most of the principal points of its doctrine. A commentary on this 

 work by the author's son, Rama-crishna dicshita, bears the title of 

 Veddnta-sic' hdmani. Taken together, they form an useful introduction to 

 the study of this branch of Indian philosophy. 



The Veddnta-sdra is a popular compendium of the entire doctrine of the 

 Veddnta.* It is the work of Sadananda, disciple of Adwayananda or 

 Adwaitananda before-mentioned, and has become the text for several 



* Mr. Ward has given, in tlie fourth volume of his View of the History, Literature, and 

 Mythology of the Hindus (third edition), a translation of the Vedanta-sara. I wish to speak as 

 gently as I can of Mr. Ward's performance ; but having collated this, I am bound to say it is no 

 version of the original text, and seems to have been made from an oral exposition through the 

 medium of a different language, probably the Bengalese. This will be evident to the oriental 

 scholar on the slightest comparison : for example, the introduction, which does not correspond 

 with the original in so much as a single word, the name of the author's preceptor alone ex- 

 cepted ; nor is there a word of the translated introduction countenanced by any of the commen- 

 taries. At the commencement of the treatise, too, where the requisite qualifications of a stu- 

 dent are enumerated, Mr. Ward makes his author say, that a person possessing those qualifica- 

 tions is heir to the veda (p. 1 76). There is no term in the text, nor in the commentaries, which 

 could suggest the notion of heir ; unless Mr. Ward has so translated adhicdri (a competent or 

 qualified person), which in Bengalese signifies proprietor, or, with the epithet uttara (tittarddhi- 

 cdri), heir or successor. It would be needless to pursue the comparison further. The meaning 

 of the original is certainly not to be gathered from such translations of this and (as Mr. Ward 

 terms them) of other principal works of the Hindus, which he has presented to the public. 



I was not aware, when jireparing the former essays on the Philosophy of the Hindus which 

 have been inserted in the first volume of Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, that Mr. 

 Ward had treated the same topics : but I think it now unnecessary to revert to the subject, 

 for the purpose of offering any remarks on his explanation of other branches of Indian philo- 

 sophy. 



Vol. II. '^ C 



