A History of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 1 by Surendranath Dasgupta (desktop ebook reader txt) 📕

Of the Pâtañjala school of Sâ@mkhya, which forms the subject of the Yoga with which we are now dealing, Patañjali was probably the most notable person for he not only collected the different forms of Yoga practices, and gleaned the diverse ideas which were or could be associated with the Yoga, but grafted them all on the Sâ@mkhya metaphysics, and gave them the form in which they have been handed down to us. Vâcaspati and Vijñâna Bhik@su, the two great commentators on the Vyâsabhâ@sya, agree with us in holding that Patañjali was not the founder of Yoga, but an editor. Analytic study of the sûtras brings the conviction that the sûtras do not show any original attempt, but a masterly and systematic compilation which was also supplemented by fitting contributions. The systematic manner also in which the first three chapters are written by way of definition and classification shows that the materials were already in existence and that Patañjali systematized them. There was no missionizing zeal, no attempt to overthrow the doctrines of other systems, except as far as they might come in by way of explaining the system. Patañjal is not even anxious to establish the system, but he is only engaged in systematizing the facts as he had them. Most of the criticism against the Buddhists occur in the last chapter. The doctrines of the Yoga are described in the first three chapters, and this part is separated from the last chapter where the views of the Buddhist are

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The Yoga writer Jaigî@savya wrote "Dhâranâs'âstra" which dealt with Yoga more in the fashion of Tantra then that given by Patañjali. He mentions different places in the body (e.g. heart, throat, tip of the nose, palate, forehead, centre of the brain) which are centres of memory where concentration is to be made. See Vâcaspati's Tâtparya@tîkâ or Vâtsyâyana's bhâ@sya on Nyâya sûtra, III. ii. 43.]

230

criticized; the putting of an "iti" (the word to denote the conclusion of any work) at the end of the third chapter is evidently to denote the conclusion of his Yoga compilation. There is of course another "iti" at the end of the fourth chapter to denote the conclusion of the whole work. The most legitimate hypothesis seems to be that the last chapter is a subsequent addition by a hand other than that of Patañjali who was anxious to supply some new links of argument which were felt to be necessary for the strengthening of the Yoga position from an internal point of view, as well as for securing the strength of the Yoga from the supposed attacks of Buddhist metaphysics. There is also a marked change (due either to its supplementary character or to the manipulation of a foreign hand) in the style of the last chapter as compared with the style of the other three.

The sûtras, 30-34, of the last chapter seem to repeat what has already been said in the second chapter and some of the topics introduced are such that they could well have been dealt with in a more relevant manner in connection with similar discussions in the preceding chapters. The extent of this chapter is also disproportionately small, as it contains only 34 sûtras, whereas the average number of sûtras in other chapters is between 51 to 55.

We have now to meet the vexed question of the probable date of this famous Yoga author Patañjali. Weber had tried to connect him with Kâpya Pata@mchala of S'atapatha Brâhma@na [Footnote ref l]; in Kâtyâyana's Varttika we get the name Patañjali which is explained by later commentators as patanta@h añjalaya@h 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. There is however another theory which identifies the writer of the great commentary on Pâ@nini called the Mahâbhâ@sya with the Patañjali of the Yoga sûtra. This theory has been accepted by many western scholars probably on the strength of some Indian commentators who identified the two Patañjalis. Of these one is the writer of the Patañjalicarita (Râmabhadra Dîk@sîta) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in S'ivarâma's commentary on Vâsavadattâ which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century. The other two are king Bhoja of Dhâr and Cakrapâ@nidatta,

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Weber's History of Indian Literature, p. 223 n.]

231

the commentator of Caraka, who belonged to the eleventh century A.D. Thus Cakrapâ@ni says that he adores the Ahipati (mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his Pâtañjala mahâbhâ@sya and the revision of Caraka. Bhoja says: "Victory be to the luminous words of that illustrious sovereign Ra@nara@nigamalla who by composing his grammar, by writing his commentary on the Patañjala and by producing a treatise on medicine called Râjam@rgâ@nka has like the lord of the holder of serpents removed defilement from speech, mind and body." The adoration hymn of Vyâsa (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 Patañjalis, the grammarian, the Yoga editor, and the medical writer to whom is ascribed the book known as Pâtañjalatantra, and who has been quoted by S'ivadâsa 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 Bhart@rhari, Kaiyya@ta, Vâmana, Jayâditya, Nâges'a, etc. are silent on this point. This is indeed a point against the identification of the two Patañjalis 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 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

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: It is important to notice that the most important Buddhist reference naraika-cittatantram vastu tadapramâ@nakam tadâ kim syât (IV. 16) was probably a line of the Vyâsabhâ@sya, as Bhoja, who had consulted many commentaries as he says in the preface, does not count it as sûtra.]

234

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 sûtra. 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 [Footnote ref 1].

The idea of soul is the same as we find in the Yoga sûtra. 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 sûtra. He