________________
TATTVA-KAUMUDĪ
पलब्धिर्भवति - अतिसन्निकादतिविप्रकर्षान्मूर्त्यन्तव्यवधानात्तमसावृतत्वादिPaveur raunara 1" On this, Kaiyyata says in his gloss Pradipa—at ja taras i lager fir 499CFE2F.Noi ai aikqara i"--According to Kaiyyaļa, Patañjalı here quotes from some other work. It seems that he took this view from "F ragason." (s sū.. I. 109 ) and " geziaragrah." (s. Sū., 1, 110 ). Moreover, we find only five causes of nonperception in the s. Sū., but in the Mahabhāşya, there are six causes of non-perception and in the Sambhya-Karika, there are eight. Therefore, the S. ST. are the oldest of these three. Moreover, the passage of Kayyata vis.. "ara
hela gru01737971 VEIC czapiirialeaniza i" seems to be hased on the two sūtras quoted above.
In reply to Mr. S'astri's arguments, the following may be stated. In thenfirst place, the word gta is not a necessary and sure sign of quotation from some other work or author Here, the word ira denotes conclusion of his remarks. How can one deny the possibility of these remarks being Patan jali's own? In the second place if, depending upon the word $T used by Kaiyyai2, it is even admitted that Patañjalı quotes the actual words of another, what is there to prove that it is the S. Sū., wherefrom, he borrowed ? It is inost probable that he borrowed the view from some other work. (See H. I. P., I, 2:8-219 ). Again, there is nothing to otlige Kaiyyata, who flourished in the 13th century A.S. (H. S. 1.. p. 431 ), to borrow from the S. Sū. He might have borrowed from the Sārikhya-Kánkā. Moreover, the causes of non-perception as given by Palanjalı tally more with those in the Sāmkhya-Kārıkā than in the S. Sū.
(4) The following sūtras agree verlatım with the Kirikäs (a) “THE CAETIA ALFTATIM fact" (s ļa, 1. 124 = Kar., 10). (b) "ATTA ATT gaña aanzetta" (8. fū., II. 18= Kär., 25). (c) "RAFFTOgrat: 9107771 alga: 42" (s. Sū., H. 31 = Kär. 29). In (a) and (b) we find different readings.
