-Sankara asserts that the Samadhi Yoga, or performance of certain meditative acts is also comprised. Sankhya as already noticed, is explained by Schlegel Ratiocinium, in our estimation much too loosely, and in like manner we object to his rendering Yoga, Devotio; although he follows Wilkins, who renders it Devotion, as we however understand devotion, we can scarcely conceive it to be identifiable with the performance of religious ceremonies, pro forma, with an utter disregard of consequences. Ritibus Assensus, would perhaps better convey the sense of the term, and Aritibus Dissentio, the opposed purport of the Sankhya, but as these phrases would still only convey a partial impression of the purport of the terms, we should prefer, as we have before observed, the use of themselves to any translation.

In the same stanza also we object to the translati ́on of Buddhi, (f) by Sententia: it is not merely the doctrine or opinion of either school, that is communicated to Arjuna, but the result; the knowledge of the divine nature of spirit and matter. Buddhi therefore is in this place, considered by Sankara as synonimous with Jnyán, a word we should rather have translated by Sapientia, than Scientia, usually preferred by Schlegel, and which though literally correct, is exceptionable, from its extended and in a manner indefinite application on the contrary Sapientia, as a term of the schools, is precisely equivalent to Jnyán; Sapientia, यसामर्थ्यं सर्व्वज्ञत्वं येोगजं योग उच्यते Restraint of spirit; faculties de.

rived from the accession of superhuman power; omniscience derived from abstract exercises. that is called Yoga-and again he describes it as the exercise by which the intellect is delivered up

to the supreme deity for the purpose of union. ईश्वरार्पणबुद्धानुष्ठीzma dinièziz à. In the Linga Purana, Yoga, is considered Nirvan, final emancipation, or identification with Siva. it is there said also that it cannot be expounded by the learned, but the knowledge of it is easily obtained by discipline, or the practice of those personal and mental restraints which coerce the senses, and purify the spirit.

autem est,ut a veteribus philosophis definitum est, rerum divinarum, et humanarum, caussarumque quibus, hæ res continentur, scientia. Cic de officiis, 6. 2.

V. 42. Vedavádarata, Partha, nanyadastíti vádinah, ( बेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यदस्तीति वादिनः) “ Librorum sacrorum dictis gaudentes, nec ultra quidquam dari, affirmantes." We are rather at a loss to understand what the translator intends in this place. The original contains not a word about giving.' The passage, is simply; "Those who are attached to the doctrines of the Vedas assert, that there is nothing else:" that is; they maintain, that the Vedas offer the only path to salvation; sacrifice and prayer are all; there is no other path to heaven. There is considerable obscurity in the rest of this stanza, and some faulty translation. Swargapará, (Я) is not "sedem apud superos finem bonorum prædicantes," but sedem apud superos summam felicitatem existimantes, those who hold the paradise of Indra to be the supreme happiness. The translator is also so far wrong, inrendering Janma Kermaphala pradam, (जन्मकर्मफलप्रदं ) insignes natales tanquam operum præmim pollicentem, that the phrase is general, not restrictive, and "lofty birth" and "reward" are not the simple senses of Janma, and Phala, which signify only birth' and fruit or consequence.' The dogma alluded to is said to be one, assigning birth as the consequence of acts:" that is; according to the act of an individual in a previous existence, he is born again either to misery or happiness.

66

V. 45. The Hindu system arranges all the attributes of spirit in action under three heads or qualities-the Satwa ( सत्त्व) Rajas ( रजस् ) arid Tamas, (तमस् ): the first comprises the presence of all good and absence of all evil; the last the presence of all evil and absence of all good and the middle one, is a mixed quality, in which the operation of the affections and passions is strongest, and gives occasional predominance to good and ill. In this verse Krishna, recommends to Arjuna

to eschew the two latter qualities, and to cultivate the first alone; to be Nirdwandwa, (f) exempt from the double alternatives of existence, as pleasure or pain &c. and to be Nityasatwastha, (fa) always firm in Satwa, the quality of Satwa, which is perhaps best rendered purity or excellence. Schlegel however translates it essentia, a sense the word bears as derived from Sat, ens, being; but certainly not applicable to it as one of the three gunas. That the quality is intended, is obvious from the context, and Sankara explains the term accordingly, Sadá Sattwa Gunásrita Bhava, (FEAIM

:) what the Sattwa Guna is, is equally indisputable, as we may learn from the following definition, (सत्त्वं निर्मलत्वात् प्रकाशकमनामयं ) The Satwa from its purity is light and tranquillity, 14. 6. Sridhara and Nilkantha, it is true interpret Satwa by Dhairya firmness, fortitude, but they intend the same thing in fact with the Satwa quality, or the mens solida of the upright man who is unmoved by ignorance and passion. It appears to be the same as the Temperantia or Tranquillitas of the Stoics, whilst the Rajas might be expressed by Perturbatio, and Tamas by Intemperantia.

In the same stanza, Niryogakshema Bhava (

H) is rendered, expers sollicitudinum esto, following no doubt Wilkins's "Be void of care." The compound admits of such a translation it is true, but it is not very precise. Yoga means here, acquisition, and Kshema preservation, and Krishna recommends to Arjuna, to be neither desirous of obtaining what he does not pos-sess, nor of preserving what he possesses.

V. 48. The word Sanga, is we think rather injudiciously interpreted by ambitio: as well observed by the translator it signifies the attachment of the French; "studium vel affectus quo animus vehementer tenetur," the eagerness evinced in the attainment of any object, or the close and intense connexion that subsists between the individual and the thing affected. It is accordingly

rendered in the Trikanda Sesha, Gridhnuta, cupidity, greediness. In the note attached to this passage, Schlegel objects to the etymology of Sanga, as given in Wilson's Dictionary; Sam, (F) with and Gama, () to go with the affix, 3 da, and the etymology there is so far defective, that it applies only to the leading sense of the word or "meeting, encountering," and to the two last union, joining, and the confluence of rivers”—in the remaining sense, "desire, cupidity," it would have been as well if the root Shanja, (4) to be attached to, had been also inserted. Schlegel however mistakes when he concludes, that Sanga so formed must necessarily be an adjective, for it is given by Amera, as a synonime of Sangama, (5) or as explained by Krishna Swami, Sangati, (f) both of which are substantives, and nouns, of the act or action, not names of the agent. Again Schlegel proposes, to derive Sanga from Shasja, () in preference to Shanja, on the principle that the latter root occasionally drops the nasal,-that is true, but whence does Shasja, (4) ever derive a nasal, and unfortunately for his theory all the lists of roots, and the Siddkanta Kaumudi, explain () by (7) ́embrace, association,' and (4) by (MA) ‘going, motion.' He has taxed the author of the Dictionary, with confounding these two roots, but we suspect the charge is urged against the wrong quarter: the Kaumudi the first grammatical authority current, confirms precisely what is there stated, and षञ्ज सङ्गे makes सजति in the 3d person present, while, in the same tense and person makes, सज्जते and सन्नति. Weare unable to see any perplexity here, or any deviation from indisputable guides.

V. 52. A wide difference occurs here in the reading of the two translators, and Wilkins calls Nirveda, (a) knowledge,' whilst Schlegel makes it ignorantia ;

it is clear that they cannot both be right, and to a certain extent both are wrong. We apprehend, however, that although Wilkins's translation of the whole passage is no doubt faulty, yet nirveda is rather knowledge than ignorance. Schlegel's error arises partly out of a spirit of system to which the learned of Europe are too ready to incline-a Pundit however eminent is content to follow established authorities, and admits the law that they have laid down: a European scholar is suspicious of autho rities, and carries this so far as not unfrequently to ques tion them without cause. Now Amera, Maheswara, Hemachandra, Medinikara, and every other Lexicographer, of note, has explained the particle Nir, (far faqufaùuùı) 'certainty, and negation,' it being sometimes an affirmative, and sometimes a privative particle. We think this might satisfy the most scrupulous, as although the senses are opposed, the interpretation is positive. Schlegel however endeavours sometimes to explain away the sense of affirmation, as we shall have occasion hereafter to notice, and at others, as in the present case, alters the sense. Now all the commentators agree to interpret Nirveda, Vairágya,, the absence of passion properly, but here, indifference: but of what nature is this indifference? it is the result of ascertained knowledge (from Nir, certainty and Veda knowing) of the futility of the dogmas of the Vedas; Krishna telling Arjuna, that when his understanding shall overpass the glooms of infatuation, he will have attained independance, or the knowledge, which will make him independant of all that he has heard, or may have to hear:* to say that he shall have attained ignorance, of what he has heard or has yet to hear, would be a strange step towards perfection. Srotavya and Sruta imply the lessons of the Vedas: that which is to be heard, or is

*

यट्ाते मोहक लिलं बुद्धि व्यतिरिष्यति । तदा गन्तासि निर्वेदं

भोतव्यस्य श्रुतस्यच