Page:A Collection of Esoteric Writings.djvu/321

307 also asserts that a four-fold and also a septenary classification on a different basis are the true classification recognized in Brahminical occultism, and that he knows them, it will be a great pity to refuse further explanation. The grounds on which Mr. Subba Row tries to keep silence have, as I have said before, no existence. He will have numerous hearers fair and impartial, and now that the difference has been proclaimed in somewhat large language, all unnecessary disagreements could only be ended by Mr. Subba Row's clearly explaining his four principles as well as the real seven-fold principles of which he is aware. There is clearly no other way out of the difficulty.

THE FORMS OF VAK.

With reference to Mr. Subba Row's lectures on Bhagavad Gita, published in the Theosophist for April 1887, page 446, where he says, "I would here call your attention to the 1st Anhika of Mahabhashya, where Patanjali speaks of three forms manifested, Pasyanti, Maddhyama and Vaikhari vach; the way he classifies is different. ...," I have to state that the 1st Anhika of Mahabhashya does not contain any such particular divisions. Patanjali quotes a verse from Rig Veda "Chatvarivak parimitapadam," &c., and interprets "Chatvarivak" nama, akyata, upasarga, and nipata. The same verse of Rig Veda is interpreted by Yaska in his Nirukta, chapter 12, in the same way as by Patanjali, and he adds some other explanations than those quoted by Mr. Subba Bow; nor does Kaita, the well-known commentator of Mahabhashya, give them in his Bhashyapradipa. But Nageshabhatta, a commentator of Bhashyapradipa, gives Mr. Subba Row's sub-divisions in detail, in his Bhashyapradipothyota, referring to Harikarika, or Vakyapadiya of Bhartrihari. This Nageshabhatta speaks of the same sub-divisions in the Sphotavada of his Manjusha and some modern grammarians give the same sub-divisions quoting from Mahabharata; Annambhatta, a commentator on Bhashya-pradipa, who lived before Nageshabhatta, did not interpret the passage in question in the way that Nageshabhatta did.

I would therefore ask you to draw Mr. Subba Row's attention to the above facts, and to explain the thing in a more acceptable way. I have herewith enclosed extracts from Mahabhashya, Kaita, and Nirukta on this point.

Yours fraternally,