________________
INTRODUCTION
23
hand, when Sankarācārya and others quote from SamkhyaKārıkā only, there is no doubt that the Sūtras did not exist in their time. Had the S. Sū., been existent, then Sarkarā. cārya and others would not have deliberately left aside the composition of a rși and quoted from the work of an ordinary mortal like Is'varkrşņa
Mr. S'astrı further tries to prove that V. Bh., and others have borrowed from the S sū. His contention is :
(1) "gigracypracoiatz AISAI Sramur=#F71aGFTTTT ftragger" (V. Bh., on N. S., IV. 1, 48 )-here sa raragara is borrowed from “sorra ATEL" (. ST., I. :15). This very sūtra has been quoted again by Vātsyāyana in his gloss on the next N. S., vis., “gegafittingfqet: Fof arsaa raha ta". Here the insertion of the word sa shows that it is a quotation from some other work. That other work is S. Sū.
To this we reply--If the word wat is a sure sign of quotation from another work then why did not Vātsyāyana put it after “rraTaTQ" in the first passage (V. Bh., on N. S., IV. I, 48 ) quoted above? And as regards the presence of a in the second passage, it should be noted that this word is not connected with only "S TARATA" but the whole passage, vie..-"nyeqat. Fi area 3921aTra." Here Vatsyayana merely repeats his own words with slight change. Therefore, it does not show that V. Bh. has borrowed from the & sū., rather, it may be just the reverse.
(2) In the Aparārka, a commentary on the YājñavalkyaSmrti ( Prāyas'cittādhyaya, v. 109 ), we find quotations from Devala which resemble the sūtrus in S. Su very much. Therefore, Devala must have borrowed them from the S. Sū.
Mr. Süstri starts here on the presumption of the priority of the S. Sū., to Devala, a fact which he has to prove.
(3) Patañjalı, in his Mahābhāşya, lays down the six causes of non-perception thus--" : TETT: Fai rara -
