The Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha. Madhava
Muktakachchhas, alluding to a peculiarity of dress, apparently a habit of wearing the hem of the lower garment untucked."—Colebrooke.
[42] In p. 26, line 3, read Syád-vádinám.
[43] I propose to read in p. 26, line 5, infra, gráhyasya for agráhyasya.
[44] As these terms necessarily relate to the perceiver.
[45] I correct the reading tasyágrahaṇaṃ to tasyá grahaṇaṃ (tasyá being jaḍatáyáḥ).
[46] I.e., if you say that the avayava may be not seen though the avayavin is seen, then I may say that the post is the avayavin, and the unperceived three worlds its avayava!
[47] I read arhatsvarúpam arhachchandra in p. 27, line 3, infra.
[48] The following passage occurs in some part of Kumárila's writings in an argument against the Jainas. It is curious that in the Sáṅkara-digvijaya, chap. lv., it is mentioned that Kumárila had a little relenting towards the Jainas at the end of his life. He repented of having so cruelly persecuted them, and acknowledged that there was some truth in their teaching. Jainagurumukhát kaśchid vidyáleśo játaḥ.
[49] Kumárila tries to prove that no such being can exist, as his existence is not established by any one of the five recognised proofs—the sixth, abháva, being negative, is, of course, not applicable. I understand the last śloka as showing the inapplicability of "presumption" or arthá-patti. A Jaina would say, "If the Arhat were not omniscient, his words would not be true and authoritative, but we see that they are, therefore he is omniscient." He answers by retorting that the same argument might be used of Buddha by a Buddhist; and as the Jaina himself would disallow it in that case, it cannot be convincing in his own.
[50] In p. 29, line 2, read tatsadbhávávedakasya for tatsadbhávádekasya.
[51] In p. 29, line 9, for nikhilárthajñanát notpatty, I propose to read nikhilárthajñánotpatty.
[52] Janya is included in Kárya and equally disputed.
[53] Thus "I am possessed of a body" (aham Śarírí), "my hand," &c., are all sentences in which a predicate involving the notion of parts is applied to the soul "I."
[54] Reasoning in a circle. I suppose the &c. includes the Anavasthádosha or reasoning ad infinitum. He accepts the supposed fault, and holds that it is actually borne out in a case before everybody's eyes.
[55] In p. 31, line 5, infra, read tattvárthe for tattvártham.
[56] I read in p. 32, line 9, Samyagdarśanádi for asamyagdarśanádi; but the old text may mean "caused by the abolition of hindrances produced by the qualities, wrong intuition," &c.
[57] Cf. the five yamas in the Yoga-sútras, ii. 30. Hemachandra (Abhidh 81) calls them yamas.
[58] I read kámánám for kámáṇám in p. 33, line 7 (2 × 3 × 3 = 18).
[59] For abháshaṇa, see Hemach. 16.
[60] I propose in p. 33, line 17, raśayanajñánaśraddhávacháraṇáni for rasáyaṇajñanaṃ śraddhánávaraṇáni. For avacháraṇa, see Suśruta, vol. ii. p. 157, &c. If anávaraṇa be the true reading, I suppose it must mean "the absence of obstructions."
[61] This is a hard passage, but some light is thrown on it by the scholiast to Hemachandra, Abhidh. 79.
[62] Or this may mean "by the influence of upaśamakshaya or kshayopaśama, it appears characterised by one or the other."
[63] I read in p. 34, line 7, kalushádyákáreṇa for kalushányákáreṇa. The upaśamakshaya and kshayopaśama seem to correspond to the aupaśamika and ksháyika states about to be described.
[64] Strychnos potatorum.
[65] Just as in the Sánkhya philosophy, the soul is not really bound though it seems to itself to be so.
[66] A valid non-perception is when an object is not seen, and yet all the usual concurrent causes of vision are present, such as the eye, light, &c.
[67] I read in p. 35, line 5, 'stíti for sthiti.
[68] Hence the term here used for "category"—astikáya.
[69] These (by Hemach. Abhidh. 21), possess only one sense—touch. In p. 35, line 10, I read śaṅkhagaṇḍolakaprabhṛitayas trasáś chaturvidháḥ pṛithivyaptejo.
[70] In p. 35, line 16, I read teshám ajívatvát for tesháṃ jívatvát. If we keep the old reading we must translate it, "because the former only are animate."
[71] In p. 35, line 3 from bottom, I read sarvatrávasthite for sarvatrávasthiti. In the preceding line I read álokenávachchhinne for álokenávichchhinne.
[72] Cf. Siddhánta-muktávali, p. 27. The vishaya is upabhoga-sádhanam, but it begins with the dvyaṇuka. This category takes up the forms of sthávara which were excluded from jíva.