Gu@naratna), but this is a mere conjecture.  There is no reason to suppose that the Sa@mkhya doctrine found in the sutras differs in any important way from the Sa@mkhya doctrine as found in the Sa@mkhya karika.  The only point of importance is this, that the Sa@mkhya sutras hold that when the Upani@sads spoke of one absolute pure intelligence they meant to speak of unity as involved in the class of intelligent puru@sas as distinct from the class of the gu@nas.  As all puru@sas were of the nature of pure intelligence, they were spoken of in the Upani@sads as one, for they all form the category or class of pure intelligence, and hence may in some sense be regarded as one.  This compromise cannot be found in the Sa@mkhya karika.  This is, however, a case of omission and not of difference.  Vijnana Bhik@su, the commentator of the Sa@mkhya sutra, was more inclined to theistic Sa@mkhya or Yoga than to atheistic Sa@mkhya.  This is proved by his own remarks in his Samkhyapravacanabha@sya, Yogavarttika, and Vijnanam@rtabhasya (an independent commentary on the Brahmasutras of Badarayana on theistic Sa@mkhya lines).  Vijnana Bhiksu’s own view could not properly be called a thorough Yoga view, for he agreed more with the views of the Sa@mkhya doctrine of the Pura@nas, where both the diverse puru@sas and the prak@rti are said to be merged in the end in Is’vara, by whose will the creative process again began in the prakrti at the end of each pralaya.  He could not avoid the distinctively atheistic arguments of the Sa@mkhya sutras, but he remarked that these were used only with a view to showing that the Sa@mkhya system gave such a rational explanation that even without the intervention of an Is’vara it could explain all facts.  Vijnana Bhik@su in his interpretation of Sa@mkhya differed on many points from those of Vacaspati, and it is difficult to say who is right.  Vijnana Bhik@su has this advantage that he has boldly tried to give interpretations on some difficult points on which Vacaspati remained silent.  I refer principally to the nature of the conception of the gu@nas, which I believe is the most important thing in Sa@mkhya.  Vijnana Bhik@su described the gu@nas as reals or super-subtle substances, but Vacaspati and Gau@dapada (the other commentator of the Sa@mkhya karika) remained silent on the point.  There is nothing, however, in their interpretations which would militate against the interpretation of Vijnana Bhik@su, but yet while they were silent as to any definite explanations regarding the nature of the gu@nas, Bhik@su definitely

224

came forward with a very satisfactory and rational interpretation of their nature.