[Footnote 56: I read in p. 32, line 9, _Samyagdarśanádi_ for _asamyagdarśanádi_; but the old text may mean "caused by the abolition of hindrances produced by the qualities, wrong intuition," &c.] [Footnote 57: Cf. the five _yamas_ in the _Yoga-sútras_, ii. 30. Hemachandra (_Abhidh_ 81) calls them _yamas_.] [Footnote 58: I read _kámánám_ for _kámáṇám_ in p. 33, line 7 (2 × 3 × 3 = 18).] [Footnote 59: For _abháshaṇa_, see Hemach. 16.] [Footnote 60: I propose in p. 33, line 17, _raśayanajñánaśraddhávacháraṇáni_ for _rasáyaṇajñanaṃ śraddhánávaraṇáni_. For _avacháraṇa_, see _Suśruta_, vol. ii. p. 157, &c. If _anávaraṇa_ be the true reading, I suppose it must mean "the absence of obstructions."] [Footnote 61: This is a hard passage, but some light is thrown on it by the scholiast to Hemachandra, _Abhidh_. 79.] [Footnote 62: Or this may mean "by the influence of _upaśamakshaya_ or _kshayopaśama_, it appears characterised by one or the other."] [Footnote 63: I read in p. 34, line 7, _kalushádyákáreṇa_ for _kalushányákáreṇa_. The _upaśamakshaya_ and _kshayopaśama_ seem to correspond to the _aupaśamika_ and _ksháyika_ states about to be described.] [Footnote 64: _Strychnos potatorum._] [Footnote 65: Just as in the Sánkhya philosophy, the soul is not really bound though it seems to itself to be so.] [Footnote 66: A valid non-perception is when an object is not seen, and yet all the usual concurrent causes of vision are present, such as the eye, light, &c.] [Footnote 67: I read in p. 35, line 5, _'stíti_ for _sthiti_.] [Footnote 68: Hence the term here used for "category"--_astikáya_.] [Footnote 69: These (by Hemach. _Abhidh._ 21), possess only one sense--touch. In p. 35, line 10, I read _śaṅkhagaṇḍolakaprabhṛitayas trasáś chaturvidháḥ pṛithivyaptejo_.] [Footnote 70: In p. 35, line 16, I read _teshám ajívatvát_ for _tesháṃ jívatvát_. If we keep the old reading we must translate it, "because the former only are animate."] [Footnote 71: In p. 35, line 3 from bottom, I read _sarvatrávasthite_ for _sarvatrávasthiti_. In the preceding line I read _álokenávachchhinne_ for _álokenávichchhinne_.] [Footnote 72: Cf. Siddhánta-muktávali, p. 27. The _vishaya_ is _upabhoga-sádhanam_, but it begins with the _dvyaṇuka_. This category takes up the forms of _sthávara_ which were excluded from _jíva_.] [Footnote 73: It is an interesting illustration how thoroughly Mádhava for the time throws himself into the Jaina system which he is analysing, when we see that he gives the Jaina terminology for this definition of _dravya_,--cf. _Vaiśesh. Sútra_, i. 1, 15. _Paryáya_ is explained as _karman_ in Hemach. _Anek_. _Paryáya_, in p. 36, line 11 (_infra_, p. 53, line 9), seems used in a different sense from that which it bears elsewhere. I have taken it doubtingly as in Hemach. _Abhidh_. 1503, _paryáyo 'nukramaḥ kramaḥ_.] [Footnote 74: _Yoga_ seems to be here the natural impulse of the soul to act.] [Footnote 75: In line 18, read _ásravaṇakáraṇatvád_.]