_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  Vatsyayana, however, in his bha@sya on Nyaya sutra, I. i 29, distinguishes Sa@mkhya from Yoga in the following way:  The Sa@mkhya holds that nothing can come into being nor be destroyed, there cannot be any change in the pure intelligence (niratis’aya@h cetana@h).  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 puru@sa.  Do@sas (passions) and the prav@rtti (action) are the cause of karma.  The intelligences or souls (cetana) are associated 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 Vyasabha@sya, 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 Sa@mkhya from Yoga.  Udyotakara’s remarks on the same sutra do not indicate a difference but an agreement between Sa@mkhya and Yoga on the doctrine of the indriyas being “abhautika.” Curiously enough Vatsyayana quotes a passage from Vyasabha@sya, III. 13, in his bha@sya, I. ii. 6, and criticizes it as self-contradictory (viruddha).]

229

S’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 1].  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