ch can stand in the way of identifying the
grammarian Patanjali with the Yoga writer, I believe we may
take them as being identical [Footnote ref 1].

The Sa@mkhya and the Yoga Doctrine of Soul or Puru@sa.

The Sa@mkhya philosophy as we have it now admits two principles,
souls and _prak@rti_, the root principle of matter. Souls are
many, like the Jaina souls, but they are without parts and qualities.
They do not contract or expand according as they occupy a
smaller or a larger body, but are always all-pervasive, and are
not contained in the bodies in which they are manifested. But
the relation between body or rather the mind associated with it
and soul is such that whatever mental phenomena happen in the
mind are interpreted as the experience of its soul. The souls are
many, and had it not been so (the Sa@mkhya argues) with the
birth of one all would have been born and with the death of one
all would have died [Footnote ref 2].

The exact nature of soul is however very difficult of comprehension,
and yet it is exactly this which one must thoroughly
grasp in order to understand the Sa@mkhya philosophy. Unlike
the Jaina soul possessing _anantajnana, anantadars'ana, anantasukha_,
and _anantaviryya_, the Sa@mkhya soul is described as being
devoid of any and every characteristic; but its nature is absolute
pure consciousness (_cit_). The Sa@mkhya view differs from
the Vedanta, firstly in this that it does not consider the soul to
be of the nature of pure intelligence and bliss (_ananda_) [Footnote ref
3]. Bliss with Sa@mkhya is but another name for pleasure and as such it
belongs to prak@rti and does not constitute the nature of soul;
secondly, according to Vedanta the individual souls (_Jiva_) are

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See S.N. Das Gupta, _Yoga Philosophy in relation to other
Indian systems of thought,_ ch. II. The most important point in favour
of this identification seems to be that both the Patanjalis as against
the other Indian systems admitted the doctrine of _spho@ta_ which was
denied even by Sa@mkhya. On the doctrine of Spho@ta see my _Study
of Patanjali_, Appendix I.]

[Footnote 2: _Karika_, 18.]

[Footnote 3: See Citsukha's _Tattvapradipika,_ IV.]

239

but illusory manifestations of one soul or pure consciousness the
Brahman, but according to Sa@mkhya they are all real and many.

The most interesting feature of Sa@mkhya as of Vedanta is
t