Let us now see if Patañjali's grammatical work contains anything which may lead us to think that he was not the same person as the writer on Yoga. Professor Woods supposes that the philosophic concept of substance (dravya) of the two Patañjalis differs and therefore they cannot be identified. He holds that dravya is described in Vyâsabhâ@sya in one place as being the unity of species and qualities (sâmânyavis'e@sâtmaka), whereas the Mahâbhâ@sya holds that a dravya denotes a genus and also specific qualities according as the emphasis or stress is laid on either side. I fail to see how these ideas are totally antagonistic. Moreover, we know that these two views were held by
232
Vyâ@di and Vâjapyâyana (Vyâ@di holding that words denoted qualities or dravya and Vâjapyâyana holding that words denoted species [Footnote ref 1]). Even Pâ@nini had these two different ideas in "jâtyâkhyâyâmekasmin bahuvacanamanyatarasyâm" and "sarûpânamekas'e@samekavibhaktau," and Patañjali the writer of the Mahâbhâ@sya only combined these two views. This does not show that he opposes the view of Vyâsabhâ@sya, though we must remember that even if he did, that would not prove anything with regard to the writer of the sûtras. Moreover, when we read that dravya is spoken of in the Mahâbhâ@sya as that object which is the specific kind of the conglomeration of its parts, just as a cow is of its tail, hoofs, horns, etc.—"yat sâsnâlâ@ngulakakudakhuravi@sâ@nyartharûpam," we are reminded of its similarity with "ayutasiddhâvayavabhedânugata@h samûha@h dravyam" (a conglomeration of interrelated parts is called dravya) in the Vyâsabhâsya. So far as I have examined the Mahâbhâ@sya I have not been able to discover anything there which can warrant us in holding that the two Patañjalis cannot be identified. There are no doubt many apparent divergences of view, but even in these it is only the traditional views of the old grammarians that are exposed and reconciled, and it would be very unwarrantable for us to judge anything about the personal views of the grammarian from them. I am also convinced that the writer of the Mahâbhâ@sya knew most of the important points of the Sâ@mkhya-Yoga metaphysics; as a few examples I may refer to the gu@na theory (1. 2. 64, 4. 1. 3), the Sâ@mkhya dictum of ex nihilo nihil fit (1. 1. 56), the ideas of time (2. 2. 5, 3. 2. 123), the idea of the return of similars into similars (1. 1. 50), the idea of change vikâra as production of new qualities gu@nântarâdhâna (5. 1. 2, 5. 1. 3) and the distinction of indriya and Buddhi (3. 3. 133). We may add to it that the Mahâbhâ@sya agrees with the Yoga view as regards the Spho@tavâda, which is not held in common by any other school of Indian philosophy. There is also this external similarity, that unlike any other work they both begin their works in a similar manner (atha yogânus'âsanam and athas'âbdânus'âsanam)—"now begins the compilation of the instructions on Yoga" (Yoga sûtrâ)—and "now begins the compilation of the instructions of words" (Mahâbhâ@sya).
It may further be noticed in this connection that the arguments
___________________________________________________________________
[Footnote 1: Patañjali's Mahâbhâ@sya, 1. 2. 64.]
233
which Professor Woods has adduced to assign the date of the Yoga sûtra between 300 and 500 A.D. are not at all conclusive, as they stand on a weak basis; for firstly if the two Patañjalis cannot be identified, it does not follow that the editor of the Yoga should necessarily be made later; secondly, the supposed Buddhist [Footnote ref 1] reference is found in the fourth chapter which, as I have shown above, is a later interpolation; thirdly, even if they were written by Patañjali it cannot be inferred that because Vâcaspati describes the opposite school as being of the Vijñâna-vâdi type, we are to infer that the sûtras refer to Vasubandhu or even to Nâgârjuna, for such ideas as have been refuted in the sûtras had been developing long before the time of Nâgârjuna.
Thus we see that though the tradition of later commentators may not be accepted as a sufficient ground to identify the two Patañjalis, we cannot discover anything from a comparative critical study of the Yoga sûtras and the text of the Mahâbhâ@sya, which can lead us to say that the writer of the Yoga sûtras flourished at a later date than the other Patañjali.
Postponing our views about the time of Patañjali the Yoga editor, I regret I have to increase the confusion by introducing the other work Kitâb Pâtanjal, of which Alberuni speaks, for our consideration. Alberuni considers this work as a very famous one and he translates it along with another book called Sânka (Sâ@mkhya) ascribed to Kapila. This book was written in the form of dialogue between master and pupil, and it is certain that this book was not the present Yoga sûtra of Patañjali, though it had the same aim as the latter, namely the search for liberation and for the union of the soul with the object of its meditation. The book was called by Alberuni Kitâb Pâtanjal, which is to be translated as the book of Pâtañjala, because in another place, speaking of its author, he puts in a Persian phrase which when translated stands as "the author of the book of Pâtanjal." It had also an elaborate commentary from which Alberuni quotes many extracts, though he does not tell us the author's name. It treats of God, soul, bondage, karma, salvation, etc., as we find in the Yoga sûtra, but the manner in which these are described (so