The Sanskrit text of this poem was published in the Benares Pa.n.dit for Sept. 1871, by Pa.n.dit Vechârâma Šarman. An edition, with a Bengali translation, was also published some years ago in Calcutta, by Jagadânanda Goswâmin; [Footnote: No date is given.] but the text is so full of false readings of every kind, and the translation in consequence goes so often astray, that I have not found much help from it. I have collated the text in the Benares Pa.n.dit (A.) with a MS. (B.) sent to me by my friend, Pa.n.dit Mahešachandra Nyâyaratna, the Principal of the Calcutta Sanskrit College. He has also sent me the readings in certain passages from two MSS. in the Calcutta Sanskrit College Library (C.D.); and I have to thank him for his help in explaining some obscure allusions. The poem itself seems to me an interesting contribution to the history of Hindu philosophical controversy, [Footnote: Dr. Banerjea has quoted and translated several stanzas in his 'Dialogues on Hindu Philosophy.'] and so I have subjoined a literal English translation. I would venture to remind my readers of the words of the manager in the prologue of the Mâlavikâgnimitra, "Every old poem is not good because it is old, nor is every modern poem to be blamed simply because it is modern." TRANSLATION. 1. Victorious is the garland-wearing foster-son of Nanda,--the protector of his devotees,--the destroyer of the cruel king,-- dark-blue like the delicate tamâla blossoms,--formidable with his many outspread rays,--mighty with all his attendant powers, [Footnote: The Bengali translation explains these as the internal powers (__antara"ngâ__) Hlâdinî, etc., and the external (__bahira"ngâ__) Prahvâ, etc.]--and having his forehead radiant like the moon. 2. This follower of the Purâ.nas, who holds by his own belief, reads to his heart's content the Purâ.na in the morning, and he listens devotedly with profound meditation, his whole mind intent on the meaning of the book. 3. Having abandoned the doctrine of the oneness of the individual and the Supreme Soul, he establishes by argument their mutual difference; having used Šruti and Šm.riti as a manifold proof, he employs Inference in many ways in the controversy. 4. This individual soul must be different from Brahman because it is always circumscribed,--many are the similar arguments which are to be acknowledged in the course of our reasonings. 5. "Might we not say that a jar and a web could be called identical because both are cognizable?" [Footnote: There is a favourite Naiyâyik example of a __kevalânvayi__ middle term, "a jar is nameable because it is cognizable as a web is."] But we cannot say so in regard to these two things in question, for Brahman alone is that which cannot be cognized.