Reading section 27

____________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: _Tarkarahasyadîpikâ_, p. 109.]

[Footnote 2: _eva@m sa@dvims'akam prâhah s'arîramth mânavâh sâ@mkhyam sa@mkhyâtmakatvâcca kapilâdibhirucyate. Matsyapurâna_, IV. 28.]

222

totality of human psychosis on the other. A systematic explanation of the gunas was attempted in two different lines by Vijñâna Bhik@su and the Vai@s@nava writer Ve@nka@ta [Footnote ref l]. As the Yoga philosophy compiled by Patañjali and commented on by Vyâsa, Vâcaspati and Vijñ@ana Bhik@su, agree with the Sâ@mkhya doctrine as explained by Vâcaspati and Vijñana Bhik@su in most points I have preferred to call them the Kapila and the Pâtañjala schools of Sâ@mkhya and have treated them together--a principle which was followed by Haribhadra in his _@Sa@ddars'anasamuaccaya_.

The other important Sâ@mkhya teachers mentioned by Gaudapâda are Sanaka, Sananda, Sanâtana and Vo@dhu. Nothing is known about their historicity or doctrines.

Sâ@mkhya kârikâ, Sâ@mkhya sûtra, Vâcaspati Mis'ra and Vijñâna Bhik@su.

A word of explanation is necessary as regards my interpretation of the Sâ@mkhya-Yoga system. The _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_ is the oldest Sâ@mkhya text on which we have commentaries by later writers. The _Sâ@mkhya sûtra_ was not referred to by any writer until it was commented upon by Aniruddha (fifteenth century A.D.). Even Gu@naratna of the fourteenth century A D. who made allusions to a number of Sâ@mkhya works, did not make any reference to the _Sâ@mkhya sûtra_, and no other writer who is known to have flourished before Gu@naratna seems to have made any reference to the _Sâ@mkhya sûtra_. The natural conclusion therefore is that these sûtras were probably written some time after the fourteenth century. But there is no positive evidence to prove that it was so late a work as the fifteenth century. It is said at the end of the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_ of Îs'varak@r@s@na that the kârikâs give an exposition of the Sâ@mkhya doctrine excluding the refutations of the doctrines of other people and excluding the parables attached to the original Sâ@mkhya works--the _@Sa@s@titantras'âstra_. The _Sâ@mkhya sûtras_ contain refutations of other doctrines and also a number of parables. It is not improbable that these were collected from some earlier Sâ@mkhya work which is now lost to us. It may be that it was done from some later edition of the _@Sa@s@titantras'âstra_ (_@Sa@s@titantroddhâra_ as mentioned by

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Venka@ta's philosophy will be dealt with in the second volume of the present work.]

223

Gû@naratna), but this is a mere conjecture. There is no reason to suppose that the Sâ@mkhya doctrine found in the sûtras differs in any important way from the Sâ@mkhya doctrine as found in the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_. The only point of importance is this, that the _Sâ@mkhya sûtras_ hold that when the Upani@sads spoke of one absolute pure intelligence they meant to speak of unity as involved in the class of intelligent puru@sas as distinct from the class of the gu@nas. As all puru@sas were of the nature of pure intelligence, they were spoken of in the Upani@sads as one, for they all form the category or class of pure intelligence, and hence may in some sense be regarded as one. This compromise cannot be found in the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_. This is, however, a case of omission and not of difference. Vijñâna Bhik@su, the commentator of the _Sâ@mkhya sûtra_, was more inclined to theistic Sâ@mkhya or Yoga than to atheistic Sâ@mkhya. This is proved by his own remarks in his _Sâmkhyapravacanabhâ@sya, Yogavârttika_, and _Vijñânâm@rtabhasya_ (an independent commentary on the Brahmasûtras of Bâdarâyana on theistic Sâ@mkhya lines). Vijñâna Bhiksu's own view could not properly be called a thorough Yoga view, for he agreed more with the views of the Sâ@mkhya doctrine of the Pura@nas, where both the diverse puru@sas and the prak@rti are said to be merged in the end in Îs'vara, by whose will the creative process again began in the prakrti at the end of each pralaya. He could not avoid the distinctively atheistic arguments of the _Sâ@mkhya sûtras_, but he remarked that these were used only with a view to showing that the Sâ@mkhya system gave such a rational explanation that even without the intervention of an Îs'vara it could explain all facts. Vijñâna Bhik@su in his interpretation of Sâ@mkhya differed on many points from those of Vâcaspati, and it is difficult to say who is right. Vijñâna Bhik@su has this advantage that he has boldly tried to give interpretations on some difficult points on which Vâcaspati remained silent. I refer principally to the nature of the conception of the gu@nas, which I believe is the most important thing in Sâ@mkhya. Vijñâna Bhik@su described the gu@nas as reals or super-subtle substances, but Vâcaspati and Gau@dapâda (the other commentator of the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_) remained silent on the point. There is nothing, however, in their interpretations which would militate against the interpretation of Vijñâna Bhik@su, but yet while they were silent as to any definite explanations regarding the nature of the gu@nas, Bhik@su definitely

224

came forward with a very satisfactory and rational interpretation of their nature.

Since no definite explanation of the gu@nas is found in any other work before Bhik@su, it is quite probable that this matter may not have been definitely worked out before. Neither Caraka nor the _Mahâbhârata_ explains the nature of the gu@nas. But Bhik@su's interpretation suits exceedingly well all that is known of the manifestations and the workings of the gu@nas in all early documents. I have therefore accepted the interpretation of Bhik@su in giving my account of the nature of the gu@nas. The _Kârikâ_ speaks of the gu@nas as being of the nature of pleasure, pain, and dullness (_sattva, rajas_ and _tamas_). It also describes sattva as being light and illuminating, rajas as of the nature of energy and causing motion, and tamas as heavy and obstructing. Vâcaspati merely paraphrases this statement of the _Kârikâ_ but does not enter into any further explanations. Bhik@su's interpretation fits in well with all that is known of the gu@nas, though it is quite possible that this view might not have been known before, and when the original Sâ@mkhya doctrine was formulated there was a real vagueness as to the conception of the gu@nas.

There are some other points in which Bhik@su's interpretation differs from that of Vâcaspati. The most important of these may be mentioned here. The first is the nature of the connection of the buddhi states with the puru@sa. Vâcaspati holds that there is no contact (_sa@myoga_) of any buddhi state with the puru@sa but that a reflection of the puru@sa is caught in the state of buddhi by virtue of which the buddhi state becomes intelligized and transformed into consciousness. But this view is open to the objection that it does not explain how the puru@sa can be said to be the experiencer of the conscious states of the buddhi, for its reflection in the buddhi is merely an image, and there cannot be an experience (_bhoga_) on the basis of that image alone without any actual connection of the puru@sa with the buddhi. The answer of Vâcaspati Mis'ra is that there is no contact of the two in space and time, but that their proximity (_sannidhi_) means only a specific kind of fitness (_yogyatâ_) by virtue of which the puru@sa, though it remains aloof, is yet felt to be united and identified in the buddhi, and as a result of that the states of the buddhi appear as ascribed to a person. Vijñâna Bhik@su differs from Vâcaspati and says that if such a special kind of fitness be admitted, then there is no

225

reason why puru@sa should be deprived of such a fitness at the time of emancipation, and thus there would be no emancipation at all, for the fitness being in the puru@sa, he could not be divested of it, and he would continue to enjoy the experiences represented in the buddhi for ever. Vijñana Bhik@su thus holds that there is a real contact of the puru@sa with the buddhi state in any cognitive state. Such a contact of the puru@sa and the buddhi does not necessarily mean that the former will be liable to change on account of it, for contact and change are not synonymous. Change means the rise of new qualities. It is the buddhi which suffers changes, and when these changes are reflected in the puru@sa, there is the notion of a person or experiencer in the puru@sa, and when the puru@sa is reflected back in the buddhi the buddhi state appears as a conscious state. The second, is the difference between Vâcaspati and Bhik@su as regards the nature of the perceptual process. Bhik@su thinks that the senses can directly perceive the determinate qualities of things without any intervention of manas, whereas Vâcaspati ascribes to manas the power of arranging the sense-data in a definite order and of making the indeterminate sense-data determinate. With him the first stage of cognition is the stage when indeterminate sense materials are first presented, at the next stage there is assimilation, differentiation, and association by which the indeterminate materials are ordered and classified by the activity of manas called sa@mkalpa which coordinates the indeterminate sense materials into determinate perceptual and conceptual forms as class notions with particular characteristics. Bhik@su who supposes that the determinate character of things is directly perceived by the senses has necessarily to assign a subordinate position to manas as being only the faculty of desire, doubt, and imagination.

It may not be out of place to mention here that there are one or two passages in Vâcaspati's commentary on the _Sâ@mkhya kârikâ_ which seem to suggest that he considered the ego (_aha@mkâra_) as producing the subjective series of the senses and the objective series of the external world by a sort of desire or will, but he did not work out this doctrine, and it is therefore not necessary to enlarge upon it. There is also a difference of view with regard to the evolution of the tanmâtras from the mahat; for contrary to the view of _Vyâsabhâ@sya_ and Vijñâna Bhik@su etc. Vâcaspati holds that from the mahat there was aha@mkâra and

226

from aha@mkâra the tanmâtras [Footnote ref 1]. Vijñâna Bhik@su however holds that both the separation of aha@mkâra and the evolution of the tanmâtras take place in the mahat, and as this appeared to me to be more reasonable, I have followed this interpretation. There are some other minor points of difference about the Yoga doctrines between Vâcaspati and Bhik@su which are not of much philosophical importance.

Yoga and Patañjali.

The word yoga occurs in the @Rg-Veda in various senses such as yoking or harnessing, achieving the unachieved, connection, and the like. The sense of yoking is not so frequent as the other senses; but it is nevertheless true that the word was used in this sense in @Rg-Veda and in such later Vedic works as the S'atapatha Brâhmana and the B@rhadâra@nyaka Upani@sad [Footnote ref 2]. The word has another derivative "yugya" in later Sanskrit literature [Footnote ref 3].

With the growth of religious and philosophical ideas in the @Rg-Veda, we find that the religious austerities were generally very much valued. Tapas (asceticism) and brahmacarya (the holy vow of celibacy and life-long study) were regarded as greatest virtues and considered as being productive of the highest power [Footnote ref 4].

As these ideas of asceticism and self-control grew the force of the flying passions was felt to be as uncontrollable as that of a spirited steed, and thus the word yoga which was originally applied to the control of steeds began to be applied to the control of the senses [Footnote ref 5].

In Pâ@nini's time the word yoga had attained its technical meaning, and he distinguished this root "_yuj samâdhau_" (_yuj_ in the sense of concentration) from "_yujir yoge_" (root _yujir_ in the sense of connecting). _Yuj_ in the first sense is seldom used as a verb. It is more or less an imaginary root for the etymological derivation of the word yoga [Footnote ref 6].

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: See my _Study of Patanjali_, p. 60 ff.]

[Footnote 2: Compare R.V.I. 34. 9/VII. 67. 8/III. 27. II/X. 30. II/X. 114. 9/IV. 24. 4/I. 5. 3/I. 30. 7; S'atapatha Brahma@na 14. 7. I. II.]

[Footnote 3: It is probably an old word of the Aryan stock; compare German Joch, A.S. geoc. l atm jugum.]

[Footnote 4: See Chandogya III. 17. 4; B@rh. I. 2. 6; B@rh. III. 8. 10; Taitt. I. 9. I/III. 2. I/III. 3. I; Taitt, Brâh, II. 2. 3. 3; R.V.x. 129; S'atap. Brâh. XI. 5. 8. 1.]

[Footnote 5: Katha III. 4, _indriyâ@ni hayânâhu@h vi@sayâte@sugocarân_. The senses are the horses and whatever they grasp are their objects. Maitr. 2. 6. _Karmendriyâ@nyasya hayâ@h_ the conative senses are its horses.]

[Footnote 6: _Yugya@h_ is used from the root of _yujir yoge_ and not from _yuja samâdhau_. A consideration of Pa@nini's rule "Tadasya brahmacaryam," V.i. 94 shows that not only different kinds of asceticism and rigour which passed by the name of brahmacarya were prevalent in the country at the time (Pâ@nini as Goldstûcker has proved is pre-buddhistic), but associated with these had grown up a definite system of mental discipline which passed by the name of Yoga.]

227

In the _Bhagavadgîtâ_, we find that the word yoga has been used not only in conformity with the root "_yuj-samâdhau_" but also with "_yujir yoge_" This has been the source of some confusion to the readers of the _Bhagavadgîtâ._ "Yogin" in the sense of a person who has lost himself in meditation is there regarded with extreme veneration. One of the main features of the use of this word lies in this that the _Bhagavadgîtâ_ tried to mark out a middle path between the austere discipline of meditative abstraction on the one hand and the course of duties of sacrificial action of a Vedic worshipper in the life of a new type of Yogin (evidently from _yujir yoge_) on the other, who should combine in himself the best parts of the two paths, devote himself to his duties, and yet abstract himself from all selfish motives associated with desires.

Kau@tilya in his _Arthas'âstra_ when enumerating the philosophic sciences of study names Sâ@mkhya, Yoga, and Lokâyata. The oldest Buddhist sûtras (e.g. the _Satipa@t@thâna sutta_) are fully familiar with the stages of Yoga concentration. We may thus infer that self-concentration and Yoga had developed as a technical method of mystic absorption some time before the Buddha.

As regards the connection of Yoga with Sâ@mkhya, as we find it in the _Yoga sûtras_ of Patañjali, it is indeed difficult to come to any definite conclusion. The science of breath had attracted notice in many of the earlier Upani@sads, though there had not probably developed any systematic form of prâ@nâyâma (a system of breath control) of the Yoga system. It is only when we come to Maitrâya@nî that we find that the Yoga method had attained a systematic development. The other two Upani@sads in which the Yoga ideas can be traced are the S'vetâs'vatara and the Ka@tha. It is indeed curious to notice that these three Upani@sads of K@r@s@na Yajurveda, where we find reference to Yoga methods, are the only ones where we find clear references also to the Sâ@mkhya tenets, though the Sâ@mkhya and Yoga ideas do not appear there as related to each other or associated as parts of the same system. But there is a remarkable passage in the Maitrâya@nî in the conversation between S'âkyâyana and B@rhad ratha where we find that the Sâ@mkhya metaphysics was offered

228

in some quarters to explain the validity of the Yoga processes, and it seems therefore that the association and grafting of the Sâ@mkhya metaphysics on the Yoga system as its basis, was the work of the followers of this school of ideas which was subsequently systematized by Patañjali. Thus S'âkyâyana says: "Here some say it is the gu@na which through the differences of nature goes into bondage to the will, and that deliverance takes place when the fault of the will has been removed, because he sees by the mind; and all that we call desire, imagination, doubt, belief, unbelief, certainty, uncertainty, shame, thought, fear, all that is but mind. Carried along by the waves of the qualities darkened in his imagination, unstable, fickle, crippled, full of desires, vacillating he enters into belief, believing I am he, this is mine, and he binds his self by his self as a bird with a net. Therefore, a man being possessed of will, imagination and belief is a slave, but he who is the opposite is free. For this reason let a man stand free from will, imagination and belief--this is the sign of liberty, this is the path that leads to Brahman, this is the opening of the door, and through it he will go to the other shore of darkness. All desires are there fulfilled. And for this, they quote a verse: 'When the five instruments of knowledge stand still together with the mind, and when the intellect does not move, that is called the highest state [Footnote ref 1].'"

An examination of such Yoga Upani@sads as S'â@n@dilya, Yogatattva, Dhyânabindu, Ha@msa, Am@rtanâda, Varâha, Ma@n@dala Brâhma@na, Nâdabindu, and Yogaku@n@dalû, shows that the Yoga practices had undergone diverse changes in diverse schools, but none of these show any predilection for the Sâ@mkhya. Thus the Yoga practices grew in accordance with the doctrines of the

___________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Vâtsyâyana, however, in his bhâ@sya on _Nyâya sûtra_, I. i 29, distinguishes Sâ@mkhya from Yoga in the following way: The Sâ@mkhya holds that nothing can come into being nor be destroyed, there cannot be any change in the pure intelligence (_niratis'ayâ@h cetanâ@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 _Vyâsabhâ@sya,_ It is closer to Nyâya in its doctrines. If Vâtsyâyana's statement is correct, it would appear that the doctrine of there being a moral purpose in creation was borrowed by Sâ@mkhya from Yoga. Udyotakara's remarks on the same sûtra do not indicate a difference but an agreement between Sâ@mkhya and Yoga on the doctrine of the _indriyas_ being "_abhautika._" Curiously enough Vâtsyâyana quotes a passage from _Vyâsabhâ@sya,_ III. 13, in his bhâ@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 Râjayoga [Footnote ref 1]. In some cases we find that there was a great attempt even to associate Vedântism 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 Pâtañjala school of Sâ@mkhya, which forms the subject of the Yoga with which we are now dealing, Patañjali 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 Sâ@mkhya metaphysics, and gave them the form in which they have been handed down to us. Vâcaspati and Vijñâna Bhik@su, the two great commentators on the _Vyâsabhâ@sya_, agree with us in holding that Patañjali was not the founder of Yoga, but an editor. Analytic study of the sûtras brings the conviction that the sûtras 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 chapters are written by way of definition and classification shows that the materials were already in existence and that Patañjali systematized them. There was no missionizing zeal, no attempt to overthrow the doctrines of other systems, except as far as they might come in by way of explaining the system. Patañjal is not even anxious to establish the system, but he is only engaged in systematizing the facts as he had them. Most of the criticism against the Buddhists occur in the last chapter. The doctrines of the Yoga are described in the first three chapters, and this part is separated from the last chapter where the views of the Buddhist are

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: The Yoga writer Jaigî@savya wrote "_Dhâranâs'âstra_" which dealt with Yoga more in the fashion of Tantra then that given by Patañjali. He mentions different places in the body (e.g. heart, throat, tip of the nose, palate, forehead, centre of the brain) which are centres of memory where concentration is to be made. See Vâcaspati's _Tâtparya@tîkâ_ or Vâtsyâyana's bhâ@sya on _Nyâya sûtra_, III. ii. 43.]

230

criticized; the putting of an "_iti_" (the word to denote the conclusion of any work) at the end of the third chapter is evidently to denote the conclusion of his Yoga compilation. There is of course another "_iti_" at the end of the fourth chapter to denote the conclusion of the whole work. The most legitimate hypothesis seems to be that the last chapter is a subsequent addition by a hand other than that of Patañjali who was anxious to supply some new links of argument which were felt to be necessary for the strengthening of the Yoga position from an internal point of view, as well as for securing the strength of the Yoga from the supposed attacks of Buddhist metaphysics. There is also a marked change (due either to its supplementary character or to the manipulation of a foreign hand) in the style of the last chapter as compared with the style of the other three.

The sûtras, 30-34, of the last chapter seem to repeat what has already been said in the second chapter and some of the topics introduced are such that they could well have been dealt with in a more relevant manner in connection with similar discussions in the preceding chapters. The extent of this chapter is also disproportionately small, as it contains only 34 sûtras, whereas the average number of sûtras in other chapters is between 51 to 55.

We have now to meet the vexed question of the probable date of this famous Yoga author Patañjali. Weber had tried to connect him with Kâpya Pata@mchala of S'atapatha Brâhma@na [Footnote ref l]; in Kâtyâyana's _Varttika_ we get the name Patañjali which is explained by later commentators as _patanta@h añjalaya@h yasmai_ (for whom the hands are folded as a mark of reverence), but it is indeed difficult to come to any conclusion merely from the similarity of names. There is however another theory which identifies the writer of the great commentary on Pâ@nini called the _Mahâbhâ@sya_ with the Patañjali of the _Yoga sûtra_. This theory has been accepted by many western scholars probably on the strength of some Indian commentators who identified the two Patañjalis. Of these one is the writer of the _Patañjalicarita_ (Râmabhadra Dîk@sîta) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in S'ivarâma's commentary on _Vâsavadattâ_ which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century. The other two are king Bhoja of Dhâr and Cakrapâ@nidatta,

__________________________________________________________________