Nothing more than a superficial comparison with Fichte is here intended. A large majority of the texts and the commentary literature would oppose the attempts of all those who would like to interpret Sāṃkhya-yoga on Fichtean lines. Footnote 27: _Tattvakaumudī_ on _Sāṃkhya-kārikā_, 25. Footnote 28: _Tattvavaiśāradī_, III. 41. Footnote 29: This was first pointed out by Dr. B. N. Seal in his _Physical, Chemical and Mechanical Theories of the Ancient Hindus_ in Dr. P. C. Ray’s _Hindu Chemistry_, Vol. II. Footnote 30: _Yoga-vārttika_, I. 45. Footnote 31: I have already said before that Bhikshu thinks that the guṇas (except the all-pervading ones) may be compared to the Vaiśeshika atoms. See _Yoga-vārttika_, III. 52. Footnote 32: Cf. _Vyāsa-bhāshya_—“_sabdādīnāṃ mūrttisamānajátīyānāṃ_,” IV. 14. Footnote 33: _Vyāsa-bhāshya_, II. 19. Footnote 34: _Vyāsa-bhāshya_, III. 13. Footnote 35: _Ibid._ Footnote 36: Nahusha an earthly king became Indra the king of the gods by the fruition of his virtues, but on account of gross misdeeds fell from Heaven and was turned into a snake. Footnote 37: _Tattravaiśāradī_, IV, 3. Footnote 38: I have translated both citta and buddhi as mind. The word buddhi is used when emphasis is laid on the intellective and cosmical functions of the mind. The word citta is used when emphasis is laid on the conservative side of mind as the repository of all experiences, memory, etc. Footnote 39: If this is a Sāṃkhya doctrine, it seems clearly to be a case of Jaina influence. Footnote 40: Compare Pañcaśikha, _svalpasaṇkaraḥ saparihāraḥ sapratyavamarshaḥ_, _Tattvakaumudī_, 2. Footnote 41: Pratyaya is explained in _Yoga-vārttika_, II. 28, as _sampratyaya_ or _prāmāṇyaniścaya_. Footnote 42: Yudhishṭhira led falsely Droṇa to believe that the latter’s son was dead by inaudibly muttering that it was only an elephant having the same name as that of his son that had died. Footnote 43: This book has, however, not yet been published. Footnote 44: Dr. Ray’s _Hindu Chemistry_, Vol. II, p. 81. Footnote 45: