the second (2) affirms the equality of the Soul with Iśvara, in consequence of its freedom from pain and other weaknesses, and not its identity with Him; for it is shewn by another Vedic text, viz. 'The passionless man attains the highest state of equality,' that any other destiny would be inconceivable. In secular modes of speaking also, such as the following, 'From the abundance of his wealth the domestic priest has become the king,' we find a figurative assertion of identity. Nor can it be said that distinction disappears on the cessation of ignorance in the state of final emancipation, because distinction, from its eternity, cannot be destroyed, and because, even if its destructibility were admitted, two separate personalities must still continue to exist. Such is a summary of our argument: further proofs from reasoning, and further texts of the Veda, are omitted from a dread of making the book too bulky."

The charge of open contempt of the Veda is brought by Sankara against Sandilya, the author of the Bhagavata heresy, as the orthodox Vedantin considers it. 157 Of that doctrine Sankara thus speaks in his remarks on Brahma Sūtra ii. 2, 45:

Veda-vipratishedhas cha bhavati | chaturshu vedeshu param śreyo 'labdhvā Sānḍilyaḥ idam śāstram adhigatavān ity-ādi-veda-nindā-darśanāt | tasmād asangatā eshā kalpana iti siddham |

"And it also contradicts the Veda: for we see such an instance of contempt of the Vedas as this, that Sandilya, not finding the means of attaining the highest good in the whole four of them, devised this Sastra. Hence it is established that these imaginations are absurd."

The points of the Bhagavata doctrine objected to by Sankara do not however appear to be those which are principally insisted on in the Bhakti Sūtras of Sandilya, published by Dr. Ballantyne in the Bibliotheca Indica in 1861. I will notice some of these doctrines. The leading principle of the system is that it is not knowledge (jnāna) but devotion (bhakti) which is the means of attaining final liberation (Sūtra 1). Devotion is defined in the 2nd Sūtra to be a supreme Jove of God (sā parā anuraktir Ïśvare). Knowledge cannot, the author considers, be the means of liberation, as it may co-exist with hatred of the object known (Sūtra 4). Neither the study of the Veda nor the acqui

157 See Colebrooke's Misc. Essays, i. 413: "A passage quoted by S'ankara Acharya seems to intimate that its promulgator was S'anḍilya,” etc., etc.

sition of such qualities as tranquility of mind is a necessary preliminary to devotion. The only requisite is a desire of emancipation, according to the commentator (remarks on Sūtra 1). Ceremonial works, too, have no bearing upon devotion (Sūtra 7), which may be practised by men of all castes, and even by Chanḍālas, since the desire to get rid of the evils of mundane existence is common to all (Sūtra 78). The commentator explains that the authority of the Vedas as the only source of supernatural knowledge is not denied, nor the fact that only the three highest castes have the right to study them: but it is urged that women, S'ūdras, etc., may attain by means of the Itihāsas and Purāṇas, etc., to knowledge founded on the Vedas, whilst Chanḍālas, etc., may acquire it by traditional instruction based on the Smriti and the practice of virtuous men. Those whose devotion is not matured in the present world, will find the opportunity of perfecting it in Svetadvīpa, the world of the divine Being (Sūtra 79). Even the wicked may have a penitential devotion (ārtti-bhaktāv eva aāhikāraḥ), and after they are freed from their guilt, they may attain to full devotion. The Bhagavad Gītā is much quoted by the commentator on these Sūtras; but the Veda is also sometimes adduced in proof of their doctrines; as e.g. the following words of the Chhandogya Upanishad, vii. 25, 2, are cited to prove that devotion is the chief requisite, and knowledge, etc., subservient to it:

“ Ātmā eva idam sarvam iti | sa vai esha evam paśyann evam manvānaḥ evam̃ vijānann ātma-ratir ātma-krīḍaḥ ātma-mithunaḥ ātmānandaḥ sa svaraḍ bhavati" | tattra "atma-rati-"rūpāyāḥ para-bhakteḥ "pasyann" iti darsanam apriyatvādi-bhrama-nirāsa-mukhena angam bhavati | "All this is Soul. He who perceives this, thinks this, knows this, delights in Soul, sports with Soul, consorts with Soul, takes pleasure in Soul; he becomes self-resplendent.' Here the sight expressed in the words 'perceiving,' etc., is by removing all errors regarding disagreeableness, etc., an adjunct of supreme devotion in the form of 'delight in Soul.'"

In his remarks on Sutra 31 the commentator quotes another passage of the same Upanishad, iii. 14, 4, in which a Sandilya is referred to as the author of a statement. Sankara in his commentary on the Upanishad calls him a rishi. He cannot, however, have been the same person as the author of the Sutras; although, even if he had been so reputed,

Sankara would have had little difficulty in denying that they could have been written by a rishi, as we shall see in the next section that he contradicts the opinion that the rishi Kapila, referred to in the Svetāśvatara Upanishad, was the author of the Sankhya aphorisms.

SECT. XI.-Distinction in point of authority between the Veda and the Smritis or non-Vedic S'astras, as stated in the Nyāya-mālā-vistara, and by the Commentators on Manu, and the Vedanta, etc.; difference of opinion between S'ankara and Madhusudana regarding the orthodoxy of Kapila and Kanāda, etc.; and Vijnāna Ehikshu's view of the Sankhya.

A distinct line of demarcation is generally drawn by the more critical Indian writers between the Vedas, and all other classes of Indian Sastras, however designated. The former, as we have seen. are considered to possess an independent authority and to be infallible, while the latter are regarded as deriving all their authority from the Veda, and (in theory at least) as infallible guides only in so far as they coincide with its dicta. This will be clear from the following passages:

I. Nyaya-mala-vistara.-The first text which I adduce has been already quoted in the Second Volume of this work, but is repeated here for facility of reference. It is from the treatise just named, i. 3, 24:

Baudhāyanā pastambāśvalāyana-kātyāyanādi-nāmānkitāḥ kalpa-sūtrādi-granthāḥ nigama- nirukta-shaḍ-anga-granthāḥ Manv-ādi-smṛitayaś cha apaurusheyāḥ dharma-buddhi-janakatvāt veda-vat | na cha mula-pramāna| sāpekshatvena veda-vaishamyam iti śankanīyam | utpannāyāḥ buddheḥ svataḥ-prāmānyāngīkārena nirapekshatvāt | Maivam | uktānumānasya kālātyayāpadishṭatvāt | Baudhāyana-sūtram Āpastamba-sūtram ity evam purusha-nāmnā te granthāḥ uchyante | na cha Kāṭhakādi-samākhyā-vat pravachana-nimittatvam yuktam | tad-grantha-nirmāna-kāle tadānīntanaiḥ kaiśchid upalabdhatvāt | tach cha avichhinna-pāramparyena anuvarttate | tataḥ Kālidāsādi-grantha-vat paurusheyāḥ | tathāpi veda-mūlatvāt pramānam | .... kalpasya vedatvam̃ nūdyāpi siddham | kintu prayatnena sādhaniyam | na cha tat sadhayitum sakyam | paurusheyatvasya samākhyaya tat-karttur upalambhena cha sādhitatvāt |

"It may be said that the Kalpa Sutras and other works designated by the names of Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Āśvalayana, Kātyāyana, ete̱,,

erroneous

and the Nigama, Nirukta, and six Vedängas, together with the Smritis of Manu and others, are superhuman, because they impart a knowledge of duty, as the Vedas do; and that they should not be suspected of inferiority to the Vedas on the ground that they depend upon a primary authority, since the knowledge which they impart is independent, because it is admitted to be self-evidencing. But this view is incorrect, for the inference in question proceeds upon an generalization. The books referred to are called by the names of men, as 'the Sūtras of Baudhāyana,' 'the Sūtras of Apastamba;' and these designations cannot correctly be said to originate in the exposition of the works by those teachers whose names they bear (as is really the case in regard to the Kāṭhaka, and other parts of the Veda); for it was known to some of the contemporaries of these men, at the time when they were composing these Sutras, Smritis, etc., that they were so engaged; and this knowledge has descended by unbroken tradition. Hence these books are, like the works of Kālidāsa and others, of human origin. Nevertheless, they possess authority, as being founded on the Veda." . . The following additional remarks represent the opinion of the Guru (Prabhakara) on the same question: "It is not yet proved that the Kalpa Sutras possess the character of the Veda; it would require great labour to prove it; and, in fact, it is impossible to prove it. For the human origin of these books is established by the names which they bear, and by their being observed to have had authors."

II. Kulluka.-The same thing is admitted by Kulluka, the commentator on Manu, who (in his remarks on i. 1) thus defines the relation of his author to the Vedas:

Paurusheyatve'pi Manu-vākyānām avigīta-mahājana-parigrahāt śrutyupagrahāch cha veda-mūlakatayā prāmānyam | Tathā cha chhandogyabrahmane śruyate "Manur vai yat kinchid avadat tad bheshajam bheshajatāyai” iti | Vṛihaspatir apy āha “Vedūrthopanibandhṛitvāt prādhānyam hi Manoḥ smritam | Manv-artha-viparītā tu yā smṛitiḥ sā na śasyate | Tavach chhāstrāni sobhante tarka-vyākaranāni cha | Dharmartha-mokshopadeshṭā Manur yāvad na dṛiśyate" | Mahābhārate 'py uktam "Purānam Mānavo dharmaḥ sāngo vedaś chikitsitam | ājnā-siddhāni chatvāri na hantavyāni hetubhiḥ" | virodhi-Bauddhādi-tarkair na hantavyāni | anukūlas tu mīmāmsādi-tarkaḥ pravarttaniyaḥ eva | ata eva vakshyati “ārsham dharmopadeśam cha veda-śāstrāvirodhinā | yas tarkenānusandhatte sa dharmam veda netaraḥ" iti |

"Though the Institutes of Manu had a personal author, still, as their reception by illustrious men of unimpeached [orthodoxy], and their conformity to the Veda, prove that they are based upon the latter, they are authoritative. Accordingly it is recorded in the Chhandogya Brāhmana that, 'Whatever Manu said is a medicine for remedial purposes.' And Vṛihaspati says: 'As Manu depends upon the contents of the Veda, he is traditionally celebrated as pre-eminent. But that Smriti which is contrary to the sense of Manu, is not approved. Scriptures and books on logic and grammar are all eclipsed as soon as Manu, our instructor in duty, and in the means of attaining both earthly prosperity, and final liberation, is beheld.' And it is said in the Mahābharata: 'The Puranas, the Institutes of Manu, the Veda with its appendages, and treatises on medicine, these four, which are established by authority, are not to be assailed by rationalistic arguments;' that is, they are not to be attacked by hostile reasonings, such as those of the Bauddhas. But friendly arguments, such as those of the Mīmānsakas, are to be employed. And accordingly we shall find below (Manu xii. 106) that he says, 'the man who investigates the injunctions of the rishis, and the rules of duty by reasoning which is agreeable to the Veda, he, and he only, is acquainted with duty."" (See above, p. 24, note 29.)

III. Nyāya-mālā-vistara.-But the precepts of the Smriti are not considered useless or superfluous. On the contrary, an authority is attributed to them corresponding to the antiquity, elevated position, and sacred character of their supposed authors. Thus the author of the Nyāya-mālā-vistara says (i. 3, 3):

Vimatā smṛitir veda-mülā | vaidika-manv-ādi-pranīta-smṛititvāt | upanayanādhyayanādi-smṛiti-vat | na cha vaiyarthyam śankaniyam | asmadādīnām pratyaksheshu paroksheshu nānā vedeshu viprakirnasya anushṭheyārthasya ekatra sankshipyamāṇatvāt |

"The variously understood Smriti is founded on the Veda, because the traditions, such as those regarding investiture, study, etc., have been compiled by Vedic men, such as Manu and others. Nor is it to be surmised that the Smriti is useless, since it throws together in a condensed form a variety of injunctions regarding matters to be observed, which are scattered through different Vedas, both such as are visible and such as are invisible to us." (This last expression appears