शिवज्ञानबोध (मेय्कण्डार - शैव सिद्धान्त का आधारभूत दार्शनिक सूत्र ग्रन्थ)

viii SIVAGNANA BOTHAM.
40 years since he published his translation of this work and
of two other works in the Journal of the American Oriental
Society, Vol. No. IV. and I am not in a position to know what
criticism it elicited then. Probably it was shelved as offering
no points of attack. The objections usually taken by Missionaries
and Oriental Scholars against Vedantism fall flat if urged
against this theory, as herein expounded. Of the Rev. H. R.
Hoisington and his translation, I must say a few words. He was
an American Missionary attached to the Batticotta Seminary
in Ceylon. He came to know of the work early and it is almost
pathetic now to read after 40 years, what difficulties he had to
contend with, before he was able to master the subject and
complete the translation and no meed of praise is sufficient for
this and other disinterested seekers after the truth, wherever
it may be found. Nor are these difficulties even vanished to-day.
Consequent on the extreme terseness of diction and brevity of
expression employed in the work, even the ordinary Pundits are
not able to understand without proper commentaries ; and very
few Pundits could be found in Southern India who are
able to expound the text properly even now. For several
years, it was in my thoughts to attempt a translation of this
work, and time and place not permitting, I was only able to
begin it about the middle of last year and when I had fairly
begun my translation, I learnt from a note in Trubner's Sarva
Darsana Sangraha that a previous translation of this work
existed and hunting out for this book, I chanced upon an old
catalogue of Bishop Caldwell and I subsequently traced out the
possession of Bishop Caldwell's book to Rev. J. Lazarus, B.A., of
Madras who very courteously leut me the use of the book and to
whom my best thanks are due. I have used the book to see
that I do not go wrong in essential points and in the language of
the translation. Rev. Hoisington's translation is not literal and
is very free and was evidently made from a very free paraphrase
given of the text by the pundits. I do not find anything cor-