a stage that they would not like to borrow from one another. As this can only be held true of earlier Buddhism I am disposed to think that the date of the first three chapters of the _Yoga sûtras_ must be placed about the second century B.C. Since there is no evidence which can stand in the way of identifying the grammarian Patañjali with the Yoga writer, I believe we may take them as being identical [Footnote ref 1]. The Sâ@mkhya and the Yoga Doctrine of Soul or Puru@sa. The Sâ@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 Sâ@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 Sâ@mkhya philosophy. Unlike the Jaina soul possessing _anantajñâna, anantadars'ana, anantasukha_, and _anantavîryya_, the Sâ@mkhya soul is described as being devoid of any and every characteristic; but its nature is absolute pure consciousness (_cit_). The Sâ@mkhya view differs from the Vedânta, firstly in this that it does not consider the soul to be of the nature of pure intelligence and bliss (_ânanda_) [Footnote ref 3]. Bliss with Sâ@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 Vedânta the individual souls (_Jîva_) 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 Patañjalis as against the other Indian systems admitted the doctrine of _spho@ta_ which was denied even by Sâ@mkhya. On the doctrine of Spho@ta see my _Study of Patanjali_, Appendix I.] [Footnote 2: _Kârikâ_, 18.] [Footnote 3: See Citsukha's _Tattvapradîpikâ,_ IV.] 239 but illusory manifestations of one soul or pure consciousness the Brahman, but according to Sâ@mkhya they are all real and many.