Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/247

 VII] I de1ltity of Pataiijali 23 1 the commentator of Caraka, who belonged to the eleventh century A.D. Thus Cakrapal)i says that he adores the Ahipati (mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech and body by his Piilailjala 1Jlllhiibhaya and the revision of Caraka. Bhoja says: "Victory be to the luminous words of that illustrious sovereign Ra1!aratigamalla who by composing his grammar, by writing his commentary on the Pataftjala and by producing a treatise on medicine called Riijamrgiiitka has like the lord of the holder of serpents removed defilement from speech, mind and body." The adoration hymn of Vyasa (which is con- sidered 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 Pataftjalis, the grammarian, the Yoga editor, and the medical writer to whom is ascribed the book known as Piitafljalatalltra, and who has been quoted by Sivadasa in his commentary on Cakradatta in connection with the heating of metals. Professor J. H. Voods of Harvard University is therefore in a way justified in his unwillingness to identify the gram- marian 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 Bhartfhari, Kaiy- yata, Vamana, J ayaditya, N ages a, etc. are silent on this point. This is indeed a point against the identification of the two Patafijalis 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 Patafijali's grammatical work contains any- thing 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 (dra'l1ya) of the two Pataftjalis differs and therefore they cannot be identified. He holds that dravya is described in f,)iisabhaya in one place as being the unity of species and qualities (siillla1lyaviseiitlllaka), whereas the .Jfahiibhiiya 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 antago- nistic. Moreover, we know that these two views were held by