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 B@rhadara@nyaka Upani@sad [Footnote ref 341]. The word has another derivative "yugya" in later Sanskrit literature [Footnote ref 342].
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 343].
As these ideas of asceticism and self-control grew the force of the flying passions 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 344].
In Pa@nini'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 345].
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 associated with desires.
Kau@tilya in his _Arthas'astra_ when enumerating the philosophic sciences of study names Sa@mkhya, Yoga, and Lokayata. The oldest Buddhist sutras (e.g. the _Satipa@t@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 Sa@mkhya, 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 Upani@sads, though there had not probably developed any systematic form of pra@nayama (a system of breath control) of the Yoga system. It is only when we come to Maitraya@ni that we find that the Yoga method had attained a systematic development. The other two Upani@sads in which the Yoga ideas can be traced are the S'vetas'vatara and the Ka@tha. It is indeed curious to notice that these three Upani@sads of K@r@s@na Yajurveda, where we find reference to Yoga methods, are the only ones where we find clear references also to the Sa@mkhya tenets, though the Sa@mkhya and Yoga ideas do not appear there as related to each other or associated as parts of the same system. But there is a remarkable passage in the Maitraya@ni in the conversation between S'akyayana and B@rhad ratha where we find that the Sa@mkhya metaphysics was offered in some quarters to explain the validity of the Yoga processes, and it seems therefore that the association and grafting of the Sa@mkhya 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 gu@na 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 shore 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 346].'"
An examination of such Yoga Upani@sads as S'a@n@dilya, Yogatattva, Dhyanabindu, Ha@msa, Am@rtanada, Varaha, Ma@n@dala Brahma@na, Nadabindu, and Yogaku@n@dalu, shows that the Yoga practices had undergone diverse changes in diverse schools, but none of these show any predilection for the Sa@mkhya. Thus the Yoga practices grew in accordance with the doctrines of theS'aivas and S'@aktas and assumed a peculiar form as the Mantrayoga; they grew in another direction as the Ha@thayoga which was supposed to produce mystic and magical feats through constant practices of elaborate nervous exercises, which were also associated with healing and other supernatural powers. The Yogatattva Upani@sad says that there are four kinds of yoga, the Mantra Yoga, Laya Yoga, Ha@thayoga and Rajayoga [Footnote ref 347]. In some cases we find that there was a great attempt even to associate 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 Sa@mkhya, 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 associated with the Yoga, but grafted them all on the Sa@mkhya metaphysics, and gave them the form in which they have been handed down to us. Vacaspati and Vijnana Bhik@su, the two great commentators on the _Vyasabha@sya_, agree with us in holding that Patanjali was not the founder of Yoga, but an editor. Analytic 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 classification 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 arecriticized; 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 Pata@mchala of S'atapatha Brahma@na [Footnote ref 348]; in Katyayana's _Varttika_ we get the name Patanjali which is explained by later commentators as _patanta@h anjalaya@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 Pa@nini called the _Mahabha@sya_ 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 Dik@sita) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in S'ivarama's commentary on _Vasavadatta_ which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century. The other two are king Bhoja of Dhar and Cakrapa@nidatta,the commentator of _Caraka,_ who belonged to the eleventh century A.D. Thus Cakrapa@ni says that he adores the Ahipati (mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his _Patanjala mahabha@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 Patanjala and by producing a treatise on medicine called _Rajam@rga@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 Bhart@rhari, Kaiyya@ta, 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 _Vyasabha@sya_ in one place as being the unity of species and qualities (_samanyavis'e@satmaka_), whereas the _Mahabha@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 Vya@di and Vajapyayana (Vya@di holding that words denoted qualities or dravya and Vajapyayana holding that words denoted species [Footnote ref 349]). Even Pa@nini had these two different ideas in "_jatyakhyayamekasmin bahuvacanamanyatarasyam_" and "_sarupanamekas'e@samekavibhaktau_," and Patanjali the writer of the _Mahabha@sya_ only combined these two views. This does not show that he opposes the view of _Vyasabha@sya_, 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 _Mahabha@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 sasnala@ngulakakudakhuravi@sa@nyartharupam_," we are reminded of its similarity with "_ayutasiddhavayavabhedanugata@h samuha@h dravyam_"
(a conglomeration of interrelated parts is called dravya) in the _Vyasabhasya_. So far as I have examined the _Mahabha@sya_ 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 _Mahabha@sya_ knew most of the important points of the Sa@mkhya-Yoga metaphysics; as a few examples I may refer to the gu@na theory (1. 2. 64, 4. 1. 3), the Sa@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 _vikara_ as production of new qualities _gu@nantaradhana_ (5. 1. 2, 5. 1. 3) and the distinction of indriya and Buddhi (3. 3. 133). We may add to it that the _Mahabha@sya_ agrees with the Yoga view as regards the Spho@tavada, 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 yoganus'asanam_ and _athas'abdanus'asanam_)--"now begins the compilation of the instructions on Yoga" (_Yoga sutra_)--and "now begins the compilation of the instructions of words" (_Mahabha@sya_).
It may further be noticed in this connection that the argumentswhich 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 [Footnote ref 350] 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 _Mahabha@sya,_ 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_ (Sa@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 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 (sofar 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 [Footnote ref 351].
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 [Footnote ref 352]. 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 avaks'akha as'vattha_ (a tree with roots upwards and branches below), after the Upani@sad 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; theobject 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 [Footnote ref 353] 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 (_citta@rttinirodha_) is lost sight of, and (7) rasayana (alchemy) is introduced as one of the means of salvation.
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 S'aiva doctrines [Footnote ref 354]. 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 S'ivadasa in connection with alchemical matters and spoken of by Nages'a as "_Carake_ Patanjali@h." We can also assume with some degree of probability that it is with reference to this man that Cakrapa@ni and Bhoja made the confusion of identifying him with the writer of the _Mahabha@sya. It is also very probable that Cakrapa@ni by his line "_patanjalamahabha@syacarakapratisa@msk@rtai@h_" 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 _Vyasabha@sya_, III. 26, and from this we can infer that it was probably written at a time when the _Vyasabha@sya_ was not written or had not attained any great sanctity or authority. Alberunialso described the book as being very famous at the time, and Bhoja and Cakrapa@ni 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 _Vyasabha@sya_ quotes in III. 44 as "_iti_ Patanjali@h," he refers to this Patanjali.
The conception of Yoga as we meet it in the Maitraya@na Upani@sad consisted of six a@ngas or accessories, namely pra@nayama, pratyahara, dhyana, dhara@na, tarka and samadhi [Footnote ref 355]. Comparing this list with that of the list in the _Yoga sutras_ we find that two new elements have been added, and tarka has been replaced by asana. Now from the account of the sixty-two heresies given in the _Brahmajala sutta_ we know that there were people who either from meditation of three degrees or through logic and reasoning had come to believe that both the external world as a whole and individual souls were eternal. From the association of this last mentioned logical school with the Samadhi or Dhyana school as belonging to one class of thinkers called s'as'vatavada, and from the inclusion of tarka as an a@nga in samadhi, we can fairly assume that the last of the a@ngas given in Maitraya@ni Upani@sad represents the oldest list of the Yoga doctrine, when the Sa@mkhya and the Yoga were in a process of being grafted on each other, and when the Sa@mkhya method of discussion did not stand as a method independent of the Yoga. The substitution of asana for tarka in the list of Patanjali shows that the Yoga had developed a method separate from the Sa@mkhya. The introduction of ahi@msa (non-injury), satya (truthfulness), asteya (want of stealing), brahmacaryya (sex-control), aparigraha (want of greed) as yama and s'auca (purity), santo@sa (contentment) as niyama, as a system of morality without which Yoga is deemed impossible (for the first time in the sutras), probably marks the period when the disputes between the Hindus and the Buddhists had not become so keen. The introduction of maitri, karu@na, mudita, upek@sa is also equally significant, as we do not find them mentioned in such a prominent form in any other literature of the Hindus dealing with the subject of emancipation. Beginning from the _Acara@ngasutra, Uttaradhyayanasutra_,the _Sutrak@rta@ngasutra,_ etc., and passing through Umasvati's _Tattvarthadhigamasutra_ to Hemacandra's _Yogas'astra_ we find that the Jains had been founding their Yoga discipline mainly on the basis of a system of morality indicated by the yamas, and the opinion expressed in Alberuni's _Patanjal_ that these cannot give salvation marks the divergence of the Hindus in later days from the Jains. Another important characteristic of Yoga is its thoroughly pessimistic tone. Its treatment of sorrow in connection with the statement of the scope and ideal of Yoga is the same as that of the four sacred truths of the Buddhists, namely suffering, origin of suffering, the removal of suffering, and of the path to the removal of suffering [Footnote ref 356]. Again, the metaphysics of the sa@msara (rebirth) cycle in connection with sorrow, origination, decease, rebirth, etc. is described with a remarkable degree of similarity with the cycle of causes as described in early Buddhism. Avidya is placed at the head of the group; yet this avidya should not be confused with the Vedanta avidya of S'a@nkara, as it is an avidya of the Buddhist type; it is not a cosmic power of illusion nor anything like a mysterious original sin, but it is within the range of earthly tangible reality. Yoga avidya is the ignorance of the four sacred truths, as we have in the sutra "_anityas'ucidu@hkhanatmasu nityas'ucidu@hkhatmakhyatiravidya_" (II. 5).
The ground of our existing is our will to live (_abhinives'a_). "This is our besetting sin that we will to be, that we will to be ourselves, that we fondly will our being to blend with other kinds of existence and extend. The negation of the will to be, cuts off being for us at least [Footnote ref 357]." This is true as much of Buddhism as of the Yoga abhinives'a, which is a term coined and used in the Yoga for the first time to suit the Buddhist idea, and which has never been accepted, so far as I know, in any other Hindu literature in this sense. My sole aim in pointing out these things in this section is to show that the _Yoga sutras_ proper (first three chapters) were composed at a time when the later forms of Buddhism had not developed, and when the quarrels between the Hindus and the Buddhists and Jains had not reached such a stage that they would not like to borrow from one another. As this can only be held true of earlier Buddhism I am disposed to think that the date of the first three chapters of the _Yoga sutras_ must be placed about the second century B.C. Since there is no evidence which can stand in the way of identifying the grammarian Patanjali with the Yoga writer, I believe we may take them as being identical [Footnote ref 358].