232

Vya@di and Vajapyayana (Vya@di holding that words denoted qualities or dravya and Vajapyayana holding that words denoted species [Footnote ref 1]).  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 arguments

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  Patanjali’s Mahabha@sya, 1. 2. 64.]

233