402 Review of " A Lecture on the Sdnkhya Philosophy" [No. 5. 



made ample use of them in his essay " On the Sankhya philosophy." 

 Of the other, bearing the title : " Sankhya Tattwa Samasa Sutra," Cole- 

 brooke was not aware whether it still existed or not, and this is the 

 same work which has been published by Dr. Ballantyne. The former, 

 which is a full exposition of the system, consists of six chapters or 

 lectures, the latter is a very compendious treatise and does not occupy 

 more space than a page. Colebrooke thought, that this collection 

 was probably the original text, because the Sankhya Pravachana 

 contained many repetitions ;* but he had not the Tattwa Samasa be- 

 fore him, or he might have altered his opinion. The Tattwa Samasa 

 is apparently not the original ; for it is not given in the usual form of 

 Sutras, — viz. of concise sentences, which, however, give always the 

 reason for what they assume, — but the whole is comprised in one 

 sentence, containing only the names of the principal notions or divi- 

 sions of the system, and appears to have been composed merely for the 

 sake of calling to memory the topics treated in the more extensive 

 Sutras. 



The Sankhya Pravachana is ascribed to Kapila, the founder of the 

 Sankhya ; but this is impossible, the Sankhya being more ancient than 

 Buddhism, and the Sutras belonging to a much more recent time. 

 This is evident from the Sutras themselves ; for they quote the opinion 

 of Panchas'ikha (Sankhya P. S. p. 216, Cap. 6. S. 68) who is the dis- 

 ciple of Kapila' s disciple Atri, and refer also to other teachers (1. c. p. 

 205). The Sutras further refer to the tenets of four of the Buddhist 



* Col. M. E. Vol. I. p. 231. " It appears from the preface of the Kapila- 

 bhashya, that a more compendious tract, in the same form of Sutras or aphorisms, 

 bears the title of Tattwa-samasa, and is ascribed to the same author, Kapila. The 

 scholiast intimates that both are of equal authority, and in no respect discor- 

 dant : one being a summary of the greater work, or else this an amplification of 

 the conciser one. The latter was probably the case ; for there is much repetition 

 in the Sankhya Pravachana." And he gives afterwards (p. 232) as another reason 

 the authority of the commentator : " If the authority of the scholiast may be 

 trusted, the Tattwa-samasa is the proper text of the Sankhya, and its doctrine is 

 more fully, but separately set forth, by the two ampler treatises, entitled Sankhya 

 Pravachana, which contain a fuller exposition of what had been succinctly deliver- 

 ed ;" but this is a misapprehension ; the scholiast does only say : " they are of 

 equal authority, one being a summary of the greater work, or else this an amplifi- 

 cation of the conciser one." Vid. Sankhya Pr. Bha. p. 5. 



