406 Review of"A Lecture on the Sankhya Philosophy " [No. 5. 



rate, it cannot have been composed earlier than at the end of the 

 second century B. C, as Patanjali, who, according to Lassen, lived in 

 the time from 200 to 150 B. C, is at the same place mentioned as a 

 teacher of the Sankhya, with others after him, whose names are not 

 stated.* 



From the preceding remarks the importance of the Sutras is evident. 

 An acquaintance with them saves a number of useless speculations, and 

 gives the only hold we can make use of in an historical research by 

 referring any later exposition of a system to the original view of the 

 school. In fact, by their means only we shall be able to form an ex- 

 act notion of the characteristics of each school. f It was therefore a 

 well- conceived idea of Dr. Ballantyne to publish the Sutras of the 

 reputed founders of the systems of Hindu philosophy, in order to ren- 

 der possible a more correct and extensive knowledge of them than 

 there had existed before. To extend the use of those works to the 

 learned in general, he accompanied the original with an English trans- 

 lation, and as the Sutras, independent of an explanation, would be 

 useless to any one, not perfectly acquainted with the systems, he 

 added to the Sutras extracts from their commentaries together with a 

 translation of them, with the exception of the Sankhya Tattwa-Samasa 

 Sutras, of which he gave the whole commentary, doubtless, because it 

 is so short and easy, that there was no necessity for an extract. To 

 give extracts only from the other commentaries, was judicious. An 

 edition of the whole of them would have for a long time retarded the 



* Vid. " Lecture on the Sankhya Philos." p. 23. The Bhagavad Gita is also 

 quoted in the commentary (L. on the S. P. p. 23) and if Lassen's conjecture is 

 correct (Vid. his second edition of the Bhagavad G. p. xxxvi.), that the Bhagavad 

 Gita was composed about 5 centuries before S'ankara, the commentary could 

 not be older than the third century A. D. This is probable indeed, but yet 

 doubtful. 



f For instance, if one reads first the Vedanta Sara, as an introduction to the 

 V^danta, he will of course think, that the doctrine of the Maya is an original tenet 

 of the school ; or in studying first the Bhasha Parichbeda, — one is inclined to be- 

 lieve, that the doctrine of the categories, of the atoms, of the soul, &c. &c. belongs 

 to the Nyaya, while all these notions are produced by the Vais'eshika, or also, that 

 the theory of the syllogism in the form, as it is deduced in that work, is the theory 

 of the founder of the Nyaya, while it appears from his Sutras, that his deduction 

 differs in important points. 



