Hrih Forum: View topic

Guest

The Two Patanjalis and their Identity
B. N. Puri

The question of the identity of Patanjali Bhasyakara with Patanjali the Yogasutrakara, engaged the attention of several scholars without achieving unanimity. Liebich and Chakra-varty identify the two but Renou, Woods, and Jacobi distinguish the two. The advocates of the identity theory base their arguments on a number of identical and complimentary factors noticed in the two works, such as, the opening part with similar aphorisms (atha sabdanusasanam and atha yoganusasanam), absence of criticism on the doctrine of Sphota in the Yogasutra, despite its repeated notice by all philosophical schools, and the reference to Yoga in the Mahabhasya. reference is also made to Bhartrhari's allusion to Yogasastra purging the mind of all foul effects (yujate yogam Brahmacari I.148) in context with his eulogy of the Mahabhasya. It is also suggested by way of negative arguments that since the two works deal with altogether different topics, having practically nothuing in common, it is difficult to trace parallelism in both the texts.

In reply to these arguments, Renou and others have advanced their views from the grammatical and philosophical viewpoints. Grammatical terminology like pratyahara, upasarga, pratyaya and vikarna etc. appear in the Yogasutra with different values. The late French Indologist expressed surprise at the non-utillization of the values of ca, vi, iti etc. in this work, and its language points to a development in the sense of analysis. The style and combination of words are also taken into consideration Jacobi duscussing at length the difference in the philosophical ideas underlying the two works, placed the Yogasutra to later period with the adoption of the original heterodox doctrines. The allusions to buddhist doctrines in the Yogasutra are also suggestive of its later character, sometimes after the fifth century AD jacobi summed up his arguments that 'since the author of the Yogasutra does not conform to the grammatical rules taught by the Mahabhasya and because the latter is ignorant of philosophical views of the former, they cannot be identified but must be two different persons.'

Wood translating the Yogabhasya (c 650-550 BC) suggested that work does not contain any allusion more or less direct to the theory of the unity of the parts of concrete substances, as set forth in the Mahabhasya. The divergent conceptions of the two works, at least in regard to the question of substance (dravya) and quality (guna) nullify the identity theory. barnett also referred to the weakness of the tradiotion attributing the Sutra (Yoga) to Patanjali (Bhasyakara). Keith is more emphatic on this point. According to him, the Yogasutra is ascribed to Patanjali, and the similarity of the name has led to the foolish identification of the philosopher with the author of the Mahabhasya. The Yogasutra is a confused text, intelligible only by the aid of the Yogabhasya ascribed to Vyasa.

The identity theory has been proposed probably on the strength of some Indian commentators who identified the two Patanjalis. These include Ramabhadra, the writer of the Patanjalicarita, who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century and Sivarama (18th century); King Bhoja of Dhar and Cakrapanidatta (11th century), the commentator of Caraka, who flourished in the eleventh century AD. According to Cakrapani, the mythical serpent chief, removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his Patanjala Mahabhasya and the revision of Caraka. It is proposed by S.N Dasgupta 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 Sivadasa in his commentary on Cakradatta in connection with the heating of metals. thus, we need not accept the tradition of later commentators as a sufficient ground to identify the two Patanjalis.

Beside these two or three Patanjalis, there was yet another one, the author of Nidanasutra. K.C Bhatnagar editing this work has quoted the Berlin catalogue and Max Muller's sadagurusisya (AD 1187?) in his comment on Katyayana's Sarvanukramani with a view to suggest that the Bhasyakara, the Yogasutrakara and the author of the Nidanasutra were really one person (Yogacaryah svayam karta yoga-sastranidanayoh). As pointed out earlier, traditional accounts, based on sivarama's comment on the Vasavadatta, as well as on Patanjalicarita of ramabhadra, suggest that Patanjali wrote three works; one on Yoga, the secnd one on grammar, and the third one on medicine as recorded by Cakrapani. the Yuktidipika refers to another Patanjali. It may be nteresting to point out that in course of time Patanjali's name like that of vedic rsis came to be associated in the formation of the gotras. An inscription from Narendra of the time of Vikramaditya and the Kadamba ruler Jayakesin II refers to Patanjali, the grammarian with his qualities imbibed by the ruler (Sabdavidya Patanjalihsah). It is more in line with the internal evidence furnished by the mahabhasya and the Yogasutra, taking into account the style, subject matter, disparity in language involving grammatical omissions in the other work, to distinguish the two more patanjalis rather than to accept their identity for namesake.

Credit: B. N. Puri