_Vyāsa-bhāshya_, 3 n., 5 n., 7 n., 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 33, 36, 37, 43 n., 50, 56, 58, 59, 60, 66 n., 68 n., 70, 71 n., 79, 84, 85, 94, 99, 101, 117, 119, 121, 133, 171 vyoman, 75 vyutthāna, 155, 156, 170 _vyutthāna citta_, 95 Ward, 2 n. Wicked, 102 World-phenomena, 16 World-process, 91 _yadyaliṅgāvasthā śabdādyupabhogaṃ vā sattvapurushānyatākhyātim vā purushārtham nirvarttayet tannrvarttane hi na sāmyāvasthā syāt_, 8 Yama, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143, 148 Yatamāna, 127 _yathā rathādi yantradibhiḥ_, 25 _yathāyaskāntamaṇiḥ svasminneva ayaḥsannidhīkaraṇamātrāt śalyanishkarshaṇākhyam upakāram kurvat purushasya svāminaḥ svam bhavati bhogasādhanatvāt_, 22 _ye cāsyānupasthitā bhāgaste cāsya na syurevaṃ nāsti pṛshṭhamiti udaramapi na gṛhyeta_, 36 Yoga, 14, 29, 48, 62, 89, 96, 122, 123, 124, 129, 130, 131, 140, 144, 147, 155, 162, 177; its points of difference with Sāṃkhya, 163–165 Yoga metaphysics, 1 _Yoga philosophy in relation to other Indian systems of thought_, 165 Yoga system, 2 Yoga theory, 5 yogāṅga, 122, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 144, 145, 149 _Yoga-sūtra_, 5 n., 11, 17, 35 n., 43 n., 45, 47, 108, 117, 142, 153 _Yoga-vārttika_, 4 n., 6 n., 9, 10, 12 n., 22, 29 n., 43 n., 45 n., 60, 61, 65, 66, 67, 87, 110, 126, 127, 129, 134 n., 143, 154, 176 Yogins, 79, 87, 95, 97, 98, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 136, 139, 143, 147, 153, 155, 156, 158, 160; nine kinds of, 129 _yogyatāvacchinnā dharmiṇaḥ śaktireva dharmaḥ_, 82 Yudhishṭhira, 140 _yutasiddhāvayaba_, 168 ----- Footnote 1: See Ward’s _Naturalism and Agnosticism_. Footnote 2: Vācaspati’s _Tattvavaiśāradī_ on the _Vyāsa-bhāshya_, III. 47. Footnote 3: _Sāṃkhyapravacanabhāshya_, I. 120. Footnote 4: It is indeed difficult to say what was the earliest conception of the guṇas. But there is reason to believe, as I have said elsewhere, that guṇa in its earliest acceptance meant qualities. It is very probable that as the Sāṃkhya philosophy became more and more systematised it was realised that there was no ultimate distinction between substance and qualities. In consequence of such a view the guṇas which were originally regarded as qualities began to be regarded as substantive entities and no contradiction was felt. Bhikshu in many places describes the guṇas as substantive entities (_dravya_) and their division into three classes as being due to the presence of three kinds of class-characteristics. This would naturally mean that within the same class there were many other differences which have not been taken into account (_Yoga-vārttika_, II. 18). But it cannot be said that the view that the guṇas are substantive entities and that there is no difference between qualities and substances is regarded as a genuine Sāṃkhya view even as early as Śaṅkara. See _Ghābhāshya_, XIV. 5. Footnote 5: