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 1] 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 2].  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.  Alberuni

_______________________________________________________

____________

[Footnote 1:  Alberuni, in his account of the book of Sa@mkhya, gives a list of commandments which practically is the same as yama and niyama, but it is said that through them one cannot attain salvation.]

[Footnote 2:  Cf. the account of Pas’upatadars’ana in Sarvadas’anasa@mgraha.]

236

also 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.