The siddhis or ways of success are eight in number, viz. (1) reading of scriptures (tara), (2) enquiry into their meaning (sutara), (3) proper reasoning (taratara), (4) corroborating one’s own ideas with the ideas of the teachers and other workers of the same field (ramyaka), (5) clearance of the mind by long-continued practice (sadamudita).  The three other siddhis called pramoda, mudita, and modamana lead directly to the separation of the prak@rti from the purus’a.  The twenty-eight sense defects are the eleven defects of the eleven senses and seventeen kinds of defects of the understanding corresponding to the absence of siddhis and the presence of tustis.  The viparyyayas, tu@stis and the defects of the organs are hindrances in the way of the achievement of the Sa@mkhya goal.]

221

(revised edition of _@Sa@s@titantra_) [Footnote ref 1].  Probably the earlier @Sa@s@titantra was lost even before Vacaspati’s time.

If we believe the @Sa@s@titantra referred to in the Ahirbudhnya Sa@mhita to be in all essential parts the same work which was composed by Kapila and based faithfully on his teachings, then it has to be assumed that Kapila’s Sa@mkhya was theistic [Footnote ref 2].  It seems probable that his disciple Asuri tried to popularise it.  But it seems that a great change occurred when Pancas’ikha the disciple of Asuri came to deal with it.  For we know that his doctrine differed from the traditional one in many important respects.  It is said in Sa@mkhya karika (70) that the literature was divided by him into many parts (tena bahudhak@rtam tantram).  The exact meaning of this reference is difficult to guess.  It might mean that the original _@Sa@s@titantra_ was rewritten by him in various treatises.  It is a well-known fact that most of the schools of Vai@s@navas accepted the form of cosmology which is the same in most essential parts as the Sa@mkhya cosmology.  This justifies the assumption that Kapila’s doctrine was probably theistic.  But there are a few other points of difference between the Kapila and the Patanjala Sa@mkhya (Yoga).  The only supposition that may be ventured is that Pancas’ikha probably modified Kapila’s work in an atheistic way and passed it as Kapila’s work.  If this supposition is held reasonable, then we have three strata of Sa@mkhya, first a theistic one, the details of which are lost, but which is kept in a modified form by the Patanjala school of Sa@mkhya, second an atheistic one as represented by Pancas’ikha, and a third atheistic modification as the orthodox Sa@mkhya system.  An important change in the Sa@mkhya doctrine seems to have been introduced by Vijnana Bhik@su (sixteenth century A.D.) by his treatment of gu@nas as types of reals.  I have myself accepted this interpretation of Sa@mkhya as the most rational and philosophical one, and have therefore followed it in giving a connected system of the accepted Kapila and the Patanjala school of Sa@mkhya.  But it must be pointed out that originally the notion of gu@nas was applied to different types of good and bad mental states, and then they were supposed in some mysterious way by mutual increase and decrease to form the objective world on the one hand and the