Vacaspati holds that from the mahat there was [email protected] and

226

from [email protected] the tanmatras [Footnote ref 1]. Vijnana [email protected] however holds that both the separation of [email protected] and the evolution of the tanmatras take place in the mahat, and as this appeared to me to be more reasonable, I have followed this interpretation. There are some other minor points of difference about the Yoga doctrines between Vacaspati and [email protected] which are not of much philosophical importance.

Yoga and Patanjali.

The word yoga occurs in the @Rg-Veda in various senses such as yoking or harnessing, achieving the unachieved, connection, and the like. The sense of yoking is not so frequent as the other senses; but it is nevertheless true that the word was used in this sense in @Rg-Veda and in such later Vedic works as the S'atapatha Brahmana and the [email protected]@nyaka [email protected] [Footnote ref 2].

The word has another derivative "yugya" in later Sanskrit literature [Footnote ref 3].

With the growth of religious and philosophical ideas in the @Rg-Veda, we find that the religious austerities were generally very much valued. Tapas (asceticism) and brahmacarya (the holy vow of celibacy and life-long study) were regarded as greatest virtues and considered as being productive of the highest power [Footnote ref 4].

As these ideas of asceticism and self-control grew the force of the flying pa.s.sions was felt to be as uncontrollable as that of a spirited steed, and thus the word yoga which was originally applied to the control of steeds began to be applied to the control of the senses [Footnote ref 5].

In [email protected]'s time the word yoga had attained its technical meaning, and he distinguished this root "_yuj samadhau_" (_yuj_ in the sense of concentration) from "_yujir yoge_" (root _yujir_ in the sense of connecting). _Yuj_ in the first sense is seldom used as a verb. It is more or less an imaginary root for the etymological derivation of the word yoga [Footnote ref 6].

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See my _Study of Patanjali_, p. 60 ff.]

[Footnote 2: Compare R.V.I. 34. 9/VII. 67. 8/III. 27. II/X. 30. II/X. 114.

9/IV. 24. 4/I. 5. 3/I. 30. 7; S'atapatha [email protected] 14. 7. I. II.]

[Footnote 3: It is probably an old word of the Aryan stock; compare German Joch, A.S. geoc. l atm jugum.]

[Footnote 4: See Chandogya III. 17. 4; [email protected] I. 2. 6; [email protected] III. 8. 10; Taitt. I. 9. I/III. 2. I/III. 3. I; Taitt, Brah, II. 2. 3. 3; R.V.x. 129; S'atap. Brah. XI. 5. 8. 1.]

[Footnote 5: Katha III. 4, [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]@sugocaran_.

The senses are the horses and whatever they grasp are their objects.

Maitr. 2. 6. [email protected] [email protected]_ the conative senses are its horses.]

[Footnote 6: [email protected]_ is used from the root of _yujir yoge_ and not from _yuja samadhau_. A consideration of [email protected]'s rule "Tadasya brahmacaryam,"

V.i. 94 shows that not only different kinds of asceticism and rigour which pa.s.sed by the name of brahmacarya were prevalent in the country at the time ([email protected] as Goldstucker has proved is pre-buddhistic), but a.s.sociated with these had grown up a definite system of mental discipline which pa.s.sed by the name of Yoga.]

227

In the _Bhagavadgita_, we find that the word yoga has been used not only in conformity with the root "_yuj-samadhau_" but also with "_yujir yoge_" This has been the source of some confusion to the readers of the _Bhagavadgita._ "Yogin" in the sense of a person who has lost himself in meditation is there regarded with extreme veneration. One of the main features of the use of this word lies in this that the _Bhagavadgita_ tried to mark out a middle path between the austere discipline of meditative abstraction on the one hand and the course of duties of sacrificial action of a Vedic worshipper in the life of a new type of Yogin (evidently from _yujir yoge_) on the other, who should combine in himself the best parts of the two paths, devote himself to his duties, and yet abstract himself from all selfish motives a.s.sociated with desires.

[email protected] in his _Arthas'astra_ when enumerating the philosophic sciences of study names [email protected], Yoga, and Lokayata. The oldest Buddhist sutras (e.g. the [email protected]@thana sutta_) are fully familiar with the stages of Yoga concentration. We may thus infer that self-concentration and Yoga had developed as a technical method of mystic absorption some time before the Buddha.

As regards the connection of Yoga with [email protected], as we find it in the _Yoga sutras_ of Patanjali, it is indeed difficult to come to any definite conclusion. The science of breath had attracted notice in many of the earlier [email protected], though there had not probably developed any systematic form of [email protected] (a system of breath control) of the Yoga system. It is only when we come to [email protected] that we find that the Yoga method had attained a systematic development. The other two [email protected] in which the Yoga ideas can be traced are the S'vetas'vatara and the [email protected] It is indeed curious to notice that these three [email protected] of [email protected]@[email protected] Yajurveda, where we find reference to Yoga methods, are the only ones where we find clear references also to the [email protected] tenets, though the [email protected] and Yoga ideas do not appear there as related to each other or a.s.sociated as parts of the same system. But there is a remarkable pa.s.sage in the [email protected] in the conversation between S'akyayana and [email protected] ratha where we find that the [email protected] metaphysics was offered

228

in some quarters to explain the validity of the Yoga processes, and it seems therefore that the a.s.sociation and grafting of the [email protected] metaphysics on the Yoga system as its basis, was the work of the followers of this school of ideas which was subsequently systematized by Patanjali. Thus S'akyayana says: "Here some say it is the [email protected] which through the differences of nature goes into bondage to the will, and that deliverance takes place when the fault of the will has been removed, because he sees by the mind; and all that we call desire, imagination, doubt, belief, unbelief, certainty, uncertainty, shame, thought, fear, all that is but mind. Carried along by the waves of the qualities darkened in his imagination, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacillating he enters into belief, believing I am he, this is mine, and he binds his self by his self as a bird with a net. Therefore, a man being possessed of will, imagination and belief is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination and belief--this is the sign of liberty, this is the path that leads to Brahman, this is the opening of the door, and through it he will go to the other sh.o.r.e of darkness.

All desires are there fulfilled. And for this, they quote a verse: 'When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state [Footnote ref 1].'"

An examination of such Yoga [email protected] as [email protected]@dilya, Yogatattva, Dhyanabindu, [email protected], [email protected], Varaha, [email protected]@dala [email protected], Nadabindu, and [email protected]@dalu, shows that the Yoga practices had undergone diverse changes in diverse schools, but none of these show any predilection for the [email protected] Thus the Yoga practices grew in accordance with the doctrines of the

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Vatsyayana, however, in his [email protected] on _Nyaya sutra_, I. i 29, distinguishes [email protected] from Yoga in the following way: The [email protected] holds that nothing can come into being nor be destroyed, there cannot be any change in the pure intelligence ([email protected] [email protected]_). All changes are due to changes in the body, the senses, the manas and the objects.

Yoga holds that all creation is due to the karma of the [email protected]

[email protected] (pa.s.sions) and the [email protected] (action) are the cause of karma.

The intelligences or souls (cetana) are a.s.sociated with qualities. Non being can come into being and what is produced may be destroyed. The last view is indeed quite different from the Yoga of [email protected],_ It is closer to Nyaya in its doctrines. If Vatsyayana's statement is correct, it would appear that the doctrine of there being a moral purpose in creation was borrowed by [email protected] from Yoga. Udyotakara's remarks on the same sutra do not indicate a difference but an agreement between [email protected] and Yoga on the doctrine of the _indriyas_ being "_abhautika._" Curiously enough Vatsyayana quotes a pa.s.sage from [email protected],_ III. 13, in his [email protected], I. ii. 6, and criticizes it as self-contradictory (_viruddha_).]

229

S'aivas and [email protected] and a.s.sumed a peculiar form as the Mantrayoga; they grew in another direction as the [email protected] which was supposed to produce mystic and magical feats through constant practices of elaborate nervous exercises, which were also a.s.sociated with healing and other supernatural powers. The Yogatattva [email protected] says that there are four kinds of yoga, the Mantra Yoga, Laya Yoga, [email protected] and Rajayoga [Footnote ref 1]. In some cases we find that there was a great attempt even to a.s.sociate Vedantism with these mystic practices. The influence of these practices in the development of Tantra and other modes of worship was also very great, but we have to leave out these from our present consideration as they have little philosophic importance and as they are not connected with our present endeavour.

Of the Patanjala school of [email protected], which forms the subject of the Yoga with which we are now dealing, Patanjali 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 a.s.sociated with the Yoga, but grafted them all on the [email protected] metaphysics, and gave them the form in which they have been handed down to us. Vacaspati and Vijnana [email protected], the two great commentators on the [email protected]_, agree with us in holding that Patanjali was not the founder of Yoga, but an editor. a.n.a.lytic study of the sutras brings the conviction that the sutras 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 cla.s.sification shows that the materials were already in existence and that Patanjali 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. Patanjal 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 [email protected] wrote "_Dharanas'astra_" which dealt with Yoga more in the fashion of Tantra then that given by Patanjali.

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 Vacaspati's [email protected]_ or Vatsyayana's [email protected] on _Nyaya sutra_, 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 Patanjali 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 sutras, 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 sutras, whereas the average number of sutras 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 Patanjali. Weber had tried to connect him with Kapya [email protected] of S'atapatha [email protected] [Footnote ref l]; in Katyayana's _Varttika_ we get the name Patanjali which is explained by later commentators as [email protected] [email protected] 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 [email protected] called the [email protected]_ 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 [email protected]) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in S'ivarama's commentary on _Vasavadatta_ which Aufrecht a.s.signs to the eighteenth century.

The other two are king Bhoja of Dhar and [email protected],

[email protected]_

[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 [email protected] says that he adores the Ahipati (mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his _Patanjala [email protected]_ and the revision of _Caraka._ Bhoja says: "Victory be to the luminous words of that ill.u.s.trious sovereign [email protected]@nigamalla who by composing his grammar, by writing his commentary on the Patanjala and by producing a treatise on medicine called [email protected]@nka_ 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 S'ivadasa 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 [email protected], [email protected], Vamana, Jayaditya, Nages'a, 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 [email protected]_ in one place as being the unity of species and qualities ([email protected]_), whereas the [email protected]