Gû@naratna), but this is a mere conjecture. There is no reason to suppose that the Sâ@mkhya doctrine found in the sûtras differs in any important way from the Sâ@mkhya doctrine as found in the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_. The only point of importance is this, that the _Sâ@mkhya sûtras_ 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 _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_. This is, however, a case of omission and not of difference. Vijñâna Bhik@su, the commentator of the _Sâ@mkhya sûtra_, was more inclined to theistic Sâ@mkhya or Yoga than to atheistic Sâ@mkhya. This is proved by his own remarks in his _Sâmkhyapravacanabhâ@sya, Yogavârttika_, and _Vijñânâm@rtabhasya_ (an independent commentary on the Brahmasûtras of Bâdarâyana on theistic Sâ@mkhya lines). Vijñâna Bhiksu's own view could not properly be called a thorough Yoga view, for he agreed more with the views of the Sâ@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 Îs'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 _Sâ@mkhya sûtras_, but he remarked that these were used only with a view to showing that the Sâ@mkhya system gave such a rational explanation that even without the intervention of an Îs'vara it could explain all facts. Vijñâna Bhik@su in his interpretation of Sâ@mkhya differed on many points from those of Vâcaspati, and it is difficult to say who is right. Vijñâna Bhik@su has this advantage that he has boldly tried to give interpretations on some difficult points on which Vâcaspati remained silent. I refer principally to the nature of the conception of the gu@nas, which I believe is the most important thing in Sâ@mkhya. Vijñâna Bhik@su described the gu@nas as reals or super-subtle substances, but Vâcaspati and Gau@dapâda (the other commentator of the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_) remained silent on the point. There is nothing, however, in their interpretations which would militate against the interpretation of Vijñâna 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.