We have now to meet the vexed question of the probable date of this famous Yoga author Patanjali. Weber had tried to connect him with Kapya Patamchala of Shatapatha Brahmana; in Katyayana’s Varttika we get the name Patanjali which is explained by later commentators as patantah anjalayah yasmai (for whom the hands are folded as a mark of reverence), but it is indeed difficult to come to any conclusion merely from the similarity of names (1).

There is however another theory which identifies the writer of the great commentary on Panini called the Mahabhashya with the Patanjali of the Yoga sutra. This theory has been accepted by many western scholars probably on the strength of some Indian commentators who identified the two Patanjalis. Of these one is the writer of the Patanjalicarita (Ramabhadra Dikshita) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in Shivarama’s commentary on Vasavadatta which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century. The other two are king Bhoja of Dhar and Cakrapanidatta, the commentator of Caraka, who belonged to the eleventh century A.D. Thus Cakrapani says that he adores the Ahipati (mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his Patanjala mahabhashya and the revision of Caraka. Bhoja says: “Victory be to the luminous words of that illustrious sovereign Ranaranigamalla who by composing his grammar, by writing his commentary on the Patanjala and by producing a treatise on medicine called Rajamriganka has like the lord of the holder of serpents removed defilement from speech, mind and body.” The adoration hymn of Vyasa (which is considered to be an interpolation even by orthodox scholars) is also based upon the same tradition. It is not impossible therefore that the later Indian commentators might have made some confusion between the three Patanjalis, the grammarian, the Yoga editor, and the medical writer to whom is ascribed the book known as Patanjalatantra, and who has been quoted by Shivadasa in his commentary on Cakradatta in connection with the heating of metals.

Professor J.H. Woods of Harvard University is therefore in a way justified in his unwillingness to identify the grammarian and the Yoga editor on the slender evidence of these commentators. It is indeed curious to notice that the great commentators of the grammar school such as Bhartrihari, Kaiyyata, Vamana, Jayaditya, Nagesha, etc. are silent on this point. This is indeed a point against the identification of the two Patanjalis by some Yoga and medical commentators of a later age. And if other proofs are available which go against such an identification, we could not think the grammarian and the Yoga writer to be the same person.

Let us now see if Patanjali’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 Patanjalis differs and therefore they cannot be identified. He holds that dravya is described in Vyasabhashya in one place as being the unity of species and qualities (samanyavisheshatmaka), whereas the Mahabhashya 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 Vyadi and Vajapyayana (Vyadi holding that words denoted qualities or dravya and Vajapyayana holding that words denoted species (2)).

Even Panini had these two different ideas in “jatyakhyayamekasmin bahuvacanamanyatarasyam” and “sarupanamekasheshamekavibhaktau,” and Patanjali the writer of the Mahabhashya only combined these two views. This does not show that he opposes the view of Vyasabhashya, though we must remember that even if he did, that would not prove anything with regard to the writer of the sutras. Moreover, when we read that dravya is spoken of in the Mahabhashya 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 sasnalangulakakudakhuravishanyartharupam,” we are reminded of its similarity with “ayutasiddhavayavabhedanugatah samuhah dravyam” (a conglomeration of interrelated parts is called dravya) in the Vyasabhasya. So far as I have examined the Mahabhashya I have not been able to discover anything there which can warrant us in holding that the two Patanjalis 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 Mahabhashya knew most of the important points of the Samkhya-Yoga metaphysics; as a few examples I may refer to the guna theory (1. 2. 64, 4. 1. 3), the Samkhya 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 vikara as production of new qualities gunantaradhana (5. 1. 2, 5. 1. 3) and the distinction of indriya and Buddhi (3. 3. 133). We may add to it that the Mahabhashya agrees with the Yoga view as regards the Sphotavada, 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 yoganushasanam and athashabdanushasanam)–”now begins the compilation of the instructions on Yoga” (Yoga sutra)–and “now begins the compilation of the instructions of words” (Mahabhashya).

It may further be noticed in this connection that the arguments which Professor Woods has adduced to assign the date of the Yoga sutra between 300 and 500 A.D. are not at all conclusive, as they stand on a weak basis; for firstly if the two Patanjalis cannot be identified, it does not follow that the editor of the Yoga should necessarily be made later; secondly, the supposed Buddhist (3) reference is found in the fourth chapter which, as I have shown above, is a later interpolation; thirdly, even if they were written by Patanjali it cannot be inferred that because Vacaspati describes the opposite school as being of the Vijnana-vadi type, we are to infer that the sutras refer to Vasubandhu or even to Nagarjuna, for such ideas as have been refuted in the sutras had been developing long before the time of Nagarjuna.

Thus we see that though the tradition of later commentators may not be accepted as a sufficient ground to identify the two Patanjalis, we cannot discover anything from a comparative critical study of the Yoga sutras and the text of the Mahabhashya, which can lead us to say that the writer of the Yoga sutras flourished at a later date than the other Patanjali.

Postponing our views about the time of Patanjali the Yoga editor, I regret I have to increase the confusion by introducing the other work Kitab Patanjal, 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 Sanka (Samkhya) 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 sutra of Patanjali, 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 Kitab Patanjal, which is to be translated as the book of Patanjala, 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 Patanjal.” 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 sutra, but the manner in which these are described (so far as can be judged from the copious extracts supplied by Alberuni) shows that these ideas had undergone some change from what we find in the Yoga sutra. Following the idea of God in Alberuni we find that he retains his character as a timeless emancipated being, but he speaks, hands over the Vedas and shows the way to Yoga and inspires men in such a way that they could obtain by cogitation what he bestowed on them. The name of God proves his existence, for there cannot exist anything of which the name existed, but not the thing. The soul perceives him and thought comprehends his qualities. Meditation is identical with worshipping him exclusively, and by practising it uninterruptedly the individual comes into supreme absorption with him and beatitude is obtained (4).

The idea of soul is the same as we find in the Yoga sutra. The idea of metempsychosis is also the same. He speaks of the eight siddhis (miraculous powers) at the first stage of meditation on the unity of God. Then follow the other four stages of meditation corresponding to the four stages we have as in the Yoga sutra. He gives four kinds of ways for the achievement of salvation, of which the first is the abhyasa (habit) of Patanjali, and the object of this abhyasa is unity with God (5).

The second stands for vairagya; the third is the worship of God with a view to seek his favour in the attainment of salvation (cf. Yoga sutra, I. 23 and I. 29). The fourth is a new introduction, namely that of rasayana or alchemy. As regards liberation the view is almost the same as in the Yoga sutra, II. 25 and IV. 34, but the liberated state is spoken of in one place as absorption in God or being one with him. The Brahman is conceived as an urddhvamula avakshakha ashvattha (a tree with roots upwards and branches below), after the Upanishad fashion, the upper root is pure Brahman, the trunk is Veda, the branches are the different doctrines and schools, its leaves are the different modes of interpretation. Its nourishment comes from the three forces; the object of the worshipper is to leave the tree and go back to the roots.

The difference of this system from that of the Yoga sutra is:
(1) the conception of God has risen here to such an importance that he has become the only object of meditation, and absorption in him is the goal;
(2) the importance of the yama and the niyama has been reduced to the minimum;
(3) the value of the Yoga discipline as a separate means of salvation apart from any connection with God as we find in the Yoga sutra has been lost sight of;
(4) liberation and Yoga are defined as absorption in God;
(5) the introduction of Brahman;
(6) the very significance of Yoga as control of mental states (cittarittinirodha) is lost sight of, and
(7) rasayana (alchemy) is introduced as one of the means of salvation (6).

From this we can fairly assume that this was a new modification of the Yoga doctrine on the basis of Patanjali’s Yoga sutra in the direction of Vedanta and Tantra, and as such it probably stands as the transition link through which the Yoga doctrine of the sutras entered into a new channel in such a way that it could be easily assimilated from there by later developments of Vedanta, Tantra and Shaiva doctrines (7).

As the author mentions rasayana as a means of salvation, it is very probable that he flourished after Nagarjuna and was probably the same person who wrote Patanjala tantra, who has been quoted by Shivadasa in connection with alchemical matters and spoken of by Nagesha as “Carake Patanjalih.” We can also assume with some degree of probability that it is with reference to this man that Cakrapani and Bhoja made the confusion of identifying him with the writer of the Mahabhashya. It is also very probable that Cakrapani by his line “patanjalamahabhashyacarakapratisamskritaih” refers to this work which was called “Patanjala.” The commentator of this work gives some description of the lokas, dvipas and the sagaras, which runs counter to the descriptions given in the Vyasabhashya, III. 26, and from this we can infer that it was probably written at a time when the Vyasabhashya was not written or had not attained any great sanctity or authority. Alberuni also described the book as being very famous at the time, and Bhoja and Cakrapani also probably confused him with Patanjali the grammarian; from this we can fairly assume that this book of Patanjali was probably written by some other Patanjali within the first 300 or 400 years of the Christian era; and it may not be improbable that when Vyasabhashya quotes in III. 44 as “iti Patanjalih,” he refers to this Patanjali.

1: Weber’s History of Indian Literature, p. 223 n.
2: Patanjali’s Mahabhashya, 1. 2. 64.
3: It is important to notice that the most important Buddhist reference naraika-cittatantram vastu tadapramanakam tada kim syat (IV. 16) was probably a line of the Vyasabhashya, as Bhoja, who had consulted many commentaries as he says in the preface, does not count it as sutra.
4: Cf. Yoga sutra I. 23-29 and II. 1, 45. The Yoga sutras speak of Ishvara (God) as an eternally emancipated purusha, omniscient, and the teacher of all past teachers. By meditating on him many of the obstacles such as illness, etc., which stand in the way of Yoga practice are removed. He is regarded as one of the alternative objects of concentration. The commentator Vyasa notes that he is the best object, for being drawn towards the Yogin by his concentration. He so wills that he can easily attain concentration and through it salvation. No argument is given in the Yoga sutras of the existence of God.
5: Cf. Yoga II. 1.
6: Alberuni, in his account of the book of Samkhya, gives a list of commandments which practically is the same as yama and niyama, but it is said that through them one cannot attain salvation.
7: Cf. the account of Pashupatadarshana in Sarvadashanasamgraha.

commentators, grammarian, panini, patanjali, western scholars, yoga sutra