Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/248

 23 2 The KaPila and the Pata'lljala Sa1?zkhya [CH. VyaQi and Vajapyayana (VyaQi holding that words denoted qualities or dravya and Vajapyayana holding that words denoted species 1). Even Pal)ini had these two different ideas in ".iiityiikhyii- yiilllekasllli1l bahuvacallamanyatarasyiim," and "sarltpiinameka- se.famekavibhaktau," and Pataftjali the writer of the Mahiibllii.fya only combined these two views. This does not show that he opposes the view of Vyiisabllii.fya, though we must remember that even if he did, that would not prove anything with regard to the writer of the siitras. Moreover, when we read that dravya is spoken of in the M ahabha.fya 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 sasnaliingulakakudakhura- VZfii?lyartlta1'ltpam," we are reminded of its similarity with (( ayutasiddhiivayavabhediillugata!l sa11liiha!1 dravyam" (a con- glomeration of interrelated parts is called dravya) in the Vyiisa- bhii.fya. So far as I have examined the .11lallllbhii.fya I have not been able to discover anything there which can warrant us in holding that the two Patafijalis 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 un- warrantable for us to judge anything about the personal views of the grammarian from them. I am also convinced that the writer of the .l1fahiibhii.fya knew most of the important points of the Sarpkhya- Yoga metaphysics; as a few examples I may refer to the gurya theory (I. 2. 64, 4. I. 3), the Sarp khy:a dictum of ex nihilo nihil fit (I. I. 56), the ideas of time (2. 2. 5, 3. 2. 123), the idea of the return of similars into similars (I. I. 50), the idea of change vikiira as production of new qualities gU1jalltariidhiina (5. I. 2, 5. I. 3) and the distinction of indriya and Buddhi (3.3. 133). Ve may add to it that the M ahiibhii.fya agrees with the Yoga view as regards the Sphotavada, which is not held in common by any other school of J ndian philosophy. There is also this external similarity, that unlike any other work they both begin their works in a similar manner (atha yogiillusiisanam and atha siibdii1lltSiisaJlam)-" now begins the compilation of the instruc- tions on Yoga" (Yoga siUra)-and "now begins the compilation of the instructions of words" (/J;lalliibhii.fya). It mayfurther be noticed in this connection that the arguments 1 I'atafijali's lJlahiibhllfya, I. 2. 6.,..