the technical terms of Sanskrit philosophy, and to speak of Atman or the Self instead of soul, of Manas, or possibly mind, instead of understanding or Verstand.
We shall see that even in Sanskrit itself the confusion is very great, there being more terms than can be accom- modated or be kept distinct one from the other. By the side of the Indriyas, or senses, for instance, we also find Prias, literally vital spirits, which include the Manas, and as a conditio sine qua non^ but not as one of the Indriyas, the so-called Mukhya PrSa, the vital breath, that passes from the lungs through the mouth, and which again in a very artificial, if not to say foolish, manner is divided into five varieties. The Manas is then treated, like the senses, as part of the body, being meant at first, I believe, for no more than the central and superintending perceptive organ. But it has many functions, and the names of some of them are interchanged with the names of the Manas itself. We have Buddhi, the general name for perception and mental activity, JTitta, thought or what is thought, Vi^Sna, discrimination, some of which are sometimes treated as separate faculties. .Sa#zkara, however, shows his powerful grasp by comprising all under Manas, so that Manas is sometimes reason, sometimes understanding, or mind or thought. This simplifies his psychology very much, though it. may lead to misunderstandings also. Manas gives us the images (Vorstellungen) which consist of the contributions of the different senses ; it tells us this is this (niraya) and fixes it (adhyavasdya). Images are formed into concepts and words (saozkalpa); these may be called into question (saauaya).
