Re: Patanjali - the identification - reg.

[hnbhat B.R.]

2011/5/8 T.S. Rukmani <ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca>

Das Gupta in his Yoga Philosophy questions why commentators of the grammatical school like Bhartrhari and others did not mention or refer to the identity of the two Patanjalis. Can any ‘vyaakarana’ please enlighten me on this. Is it true. If my memory serves me right  isn’t there some reference to the YS in Nagojibhatta’s  commentary as well as in the Vakyapadiya first chapter vrtti.  It can bear on the date of the YS Patanjali

Dhanyavadah

 

Traditionally it is believed that Patanjali, is has written in three different Shastra-s as per the following verse of salutation in  Bho0ja's Rājamārttanda commentary on the Yoga Sūtras 

योगेन चित्तस्य पदेन वाचां

मलं शरीरस्य च वैद्यकेन.

योपाकरोत् तं प्रवरं मुनीनाम्.

पतञ्जलिं प्राञ्जलिरानतोस्मि.

yogena cittasya padena vācām |
malaṁ śarīrasya ca vaidyakena |
yo'pākarot taṁ pravaraṁ munīnām |
patañjaliṁ prāñjalirānato'smi | |

[I bow to the sage Patanjali, who gave us yoga (Yoga for the purification of mind, grammar for the purification of speech, and medicine for cleansing the body.}

Other members may offer some more testimony for the identification or its denial in the light of modern research.

With regards

-- 

Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

PS: Please change the subject line, if you are asking a question in a thread  not related to the subject so that it would draw attention of members to the subject of your question. Otherwise it may be lost sight of.

[T.S. Rukmani]

Thank you. Yes I am familiar with this verse. But that does not answer my specific question. I look forward to what other grammar-scholars have to say on the subject.

Dhanyavadah

TSR

 

 

 

 

Dr. T.S. Rukmani

Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies

Concordia University

Department of Religion

1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West

Montreal, Quebec

H3G 1M8

tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085

fax: 514-848-4541

email: ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca

 

---

--
अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि।
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि।।
तस्मादुत्तिष्ठ कौन्तेय युद्धाय कृतनिश्चयः।
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I do not claim myself to be a grammarian. But it seems that it may not be too far fetched to assert that there is nothing to prove the identity of the grammarian and the author of the Yogasūtras. Das Gupta had his own ideas with many such identifications. He thought that the words brahmasūtrapada in the Gītā meant Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahmasūtras. But see Deussen on this. Far from Das Gupta’s idea the Gītā was the foundation of later Vedānta including the Brahmasūtras.

Best

DB

---

From: T.S. Rukmani <ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 9 May 2011 9:10 PM
Subject: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification - reg.

[Sampath Kannan]

Dr TSRukmani, There is actually a commentary on the Yoga Sutra-s by Nagoji Bhatta. It is  published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.1927 (2nd Edition) - along with the other com. BhAvAgaNes'Iya. Nagoji's com. is just called vRtti. It closely follows the other commentary, also called yoga-dIpikA, hence printed after the same. This apart, there are some bits of information available here and there. 1. The name Patan"jala/Padan"jala occurs in the gaNapATha of as"TAdhyAyI of pANini in the upakAdi-gaNa 2. In Matsya PurANa, there is a mention of An'girasapatan"jali. 3.In bRhadAraNyakopanis"ad there are two references to pAtan"cala-kApya, construed by Weber to refer to the founders of Yoga and SAn'khya. There is a reference there itself to a vaiyAghrapadIputra. 4.There is a gotra-nAman called vaiyaghrapadya in ChAndogyopanis"ad. 5.buDila as'vatarAs'va  and indradyumna bhAllaveya are referred to as vaiyAghrapadya-s in s'atapatha brAhmaNa. 6.A similar reference obtains in s'AnkhAyana AraNyaka. 7. So again even in jaiminIyopanis"ad brAhmaNa. 8. cakrapANi, the commentator on caraka samhitA, pays homage to patan"jali as master of the three disciplines in his Ayurveda dIpikA: pAtan"jala-mahAbhAs"ya-caraka-pratisaMskrtaiH/ mano-vAk-kAya-dos"ANAm hartre'hipataye namaH // 9. Bhoja in his commentary on yogasUtra says : vAkcetovapus"Am malaH phaNibhRtA bhartreva yenoddhRtaH / 10.In the bhavis"ya purANa there is a description the portrayal of the character of patan"jali. If you are keen on puruing these seriously, I can also get the full references of some of these at least. KSKannan Bangalore --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattach...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[Sampath Kannan]

Sorry for the inadvertent spelling error in the last paragraph : read pursuing for puruing. KSKannan Bangalore --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com> wrote:

[rukmani]

Thank you

TSR

[rukmani]

Thank you.

Rukmani

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dipak Bhattacharya
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 11:56 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[rukmani]

Thank you.

Om

TSR

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sampath Kannan
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:11 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

There is copious information in Dr. Kannan's mail for which the correspondent must be thanked. But, barring information 8 and 9, none speak of the identity of the two. For example, the statement  "In Matsya Purāṇa, there is a mention of Āṅgirasapatañjali." is perfectly consistent with the fact that by all evidences Patañjali, the grammarian, was a Paippalādin.  I shall be thankful for information on the location of this in the M.P. But what has that got to do with the identity? Both Bhoja and Cakrapāṇidatta are much later than Patañjali. Nāgoji Bhaṭṭa is even later. Decisive internal evidence is required to establish the identity. 

Best

DB

 

 

---

From: Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, 9 May 2011 10:34 PM

[subrahmanyam korada]

namo vidvadbhyah

Dr Rukmani -- Patanjalis or Patanjali ?

Bhartr.hari - Vakyapadiyam (1-147) --

kAyavAgbuddhivis.ayA ye malA samavasthitA.h I
cikitsAlaks.an.AdhyAtmas'Astraistes.Am vis'uddhaya.h II

NAges'abhat.t.a.h - Laghuman~jUs.A - 1- Aptopadess'asya s'abdaprAmAn.yam --

Apto namAnubhavena vastutattvasya kartsnyena nis'cayavAn , rAgAdivas'Adapi  nAnyathAvAdI  ya.h sa iti carake patan~jali.h

Also refer to the introduction of CarakasamhitA for more material .

I simply fail to understand as to how can one  draw conclusions by applying present procedures and methods to age old  treatises .
The tradition was different from what it is today .
Even if we take an author who is alive and did a couple of books hardly will there be any evidence to prove that he is the author of all the books in question .

How to trust that Panini did JAmbavatIparin.ayam ? How can one say that Panini did As.t.AdhyAyI ?

First of all we have to bear it in mind that they follow Yoga -- s'ama, dama , satyam etc unlike most of today's authors .They do not want patent rights or fanfare . No selfishness .

Most of  such  vivAdas had cropped up due to the History Books written by Mlecchas and the Indiain followers .How can a single person  do such a difficult and vast treatises - is their doubt .

The unfortunate situation is that one thinks that the other is as good as himself in terms of intelligence , health , wealth etc. without going thru the KarmasiddhAnta .

S'an'karAcArya under BrahmasUtra (1-3) - s'AstrayonitvAt - clearly states the greatness of Panini etc. - pAn.inyAdInAmiva jn~eyaikades'a .....

Take up the present day statement -- yoga has enhanced my health(physical) . Nowhere is physical health discussed  in Yoga and as is well known it is meant for cleansing the mind which may in turn be useful in the improvement of physical health -.AvicAritaraman.Iyam .

On the other hand Ayurveda discusses both Manas and S'arIram (Adhis.t.hAnam) . People follow blindly --

gatAnugatiko loko na loka.h pAramAthika.h I
gan'gAsaikatalin'gena nas.t.am tAmrabhAjanam II

What is the proof  to say that so and so is the son of a mother/father and vice versa ?

SAyan.amAdhava says with continuous wars he did not have time even to perform SandhyAvandanam ! Do you trust his words or not ?

Most of the scholars on this list have other skills not known to all others (kavitvam etc).
If not mistaken for glory - I learned Veda , Amara , S'Astras etc while doing Agriculture (21 years) - both harvesting and rearing the livestock .
I love to recite Veda with Vedic scholars and discuss S'Astras with fellow scholars . I may do a book on Agriculture .

If S'ani is there in As.t.amasthAna (from Lagna) one can have diversified activities  and skills in different arts and crafts .

Can anybody prove that there happened a  100 years War between Britain and France ?

Iran does not believe in Hitler's Holocaust ? And Britain was trying to change its textbooks to suit the same .

What is the context for Hari to say - kAyavAgbuddhivis.ayA .. ?

There are three kinds of Dos.as (defects) - i.e. related to VAk , Manas and S'arIram . In order to obviate the same the same Patan~jali did three works - MahAbhAs.yam , YogAnus'Asanam (S'Asanam by Hiran.yagarbha) and CarakasUtram - says avicchinnagurus'is.yaparamparA .

It is difficult to make a person believe . VyAsa , the commentator of YogasUtras was altogether a different from PArAs'arya .

dhanyo'smi

Prof.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit,
CALTS,
University of Hyderabad 500046
Ph:09866110741(R),91-40-23010741,040-23133660(O)

[Sampath Kannan]

There is much truth in what Dr DB has said. Rather than attempting to answer the central issue, for which there is anyhow not much to add (as far as I know at least), I just submitted some information that could be gathered reg. Patanjali, so that it may be of some use to somebody in some manner to the problem. The Matsya Purana ref. to Patanjali that I have noted down is 195.25.  I am not in a position right now to check and confirm. The main contention of Westerners regarding the identity or otherwise of Patanjali(s), is that the claim/assertion of identity is not made within the Indian tradition for something like ten centuries. And afterwards, there are many. The question of DrTSRukmani attains significance in the light of this. I look forward to write-ups that may enlighten us a little more. KSKannan Bangalore

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

10 05 11

Dear Dr.Kannan,

Thanks for the information about the M.P.

Just to remove misunderstanding I emphasize did not take side in the debate. My own opinion is that no conclusive evidence is available for the identity or otherwise of the Mahābhāṣyakāra and the Yogasūtrakāra. We cannot say on the basis of definite evidence that they were not one, and not also the otherway round.

I give a few examples of how just the non-mention might not be decisive in determining the date of something. It is by all evidence probable that the Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa presupposes the ten-maṇḍala Ṛgveda. But the term for the Ṛgveda as a ‘collection of ten’ namely Daśatayī  is found later. The Niruktakāra definitely knew the twenty-kāṇḍa Paippalāda-Śaṃhitā but an explicit mention of the twenty kāṇḍas as such is met with first in Patañjali’s Mbh.

In the history of our languages there are examples of how extremely ancient words not attested in Classical Sanskrit surface up in NIA languages. Something might live below the surface and may show its face in congenial environment.

Best wishes

DB

---

From: Sampath Kannan <ks_k...@yahoo.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 7:40 PM

[T.S. Rukmani]

Yes what DB says is exactly the point. Where is the internal evidence for the identity of the two Patanjalis. Let me thank all the scholars for giving me information on the occurrence of the name Patanjali in some of the texts.

Om

TSR

 

 

 

Dr. T.S. Rukmani

Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies

Concordia University

Department of Religion

1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West

Montreal, Quebec

H3G 1M8

tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085

fax: 514-848-4541

email: ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca

 

[T.S. Rukmani]

Thanks for all this. Could you, if possible, give the references in devanagari.

Om

Rukmani

 

 

 

Dr. T.S. Rukmani

Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies

Concordia University

Department of Religion

1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West

Montreal, Quebec

H3G 1M8

tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085

fax: 514-848-4541

email: ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca

 

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear Dr Dipak Bhatacharya. I fully agree with, and admire, your argument. There are hundreds of words/concepts I myself know that I have not had occasion to use, even in conversations, leave alone writing, where I may choose to confine to certain areas only. This is easily the case with thousands of people through history. To make a major argument out of this is puerile. Yes, it is Whitney's argument : if a root in the list is not attested, brand the dhAtu-pATha as a concoction/fabrication. We have to remind ourselves perhaps of Patanjali's own decree (on as"TAdhyAyI 4.1.3): [s"aDbhiH prakAraiH] satAm bhAvAnAm anupalabdhir bhavati etc. ! And here is a happy concordance on this very issue ! : caraka-samhitA 1.1.8 : satAm ca rUpANAm, atisannikars"At etc. And cakrapANi thereon is even more forthcoming and elucidating : Ayurveda-dIpikA : "satAm" = [vaks"yamANa-atisannikars"Ady-abhAve] pratyaks"eNaiva gRhyamANatvena satAm - ityarthaH. Could things be clearer ? Also see sAnkhya-kArikA 6 and 7. The maxim cakAro'nukta-samuccayArthaH (sAnkhya-tattva-kaumudI of vAcaspatimis'ra on the latter kArikA) is almost a trite one in Sanskrit ! anuktam anyato grAhyam has become, in the hands of modern critics, anuktam anyato'grAhyam !! And well has it been said : The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence !!

[Madhav M. Deshpande]

Dear Rukmani,

I was away from home for a few days and could not get to this
interesting discussion. Within the tradition of Sanskrit grammar, as
far as I know, only Nāgeśa explicitly seems to believe in the identity
of the two Patañjalis. In his Uddyota he says: seśvarasāṃkhyānāṃ
ācāryasya patañjaler ity arthaḥ / guṇasamūho dravyam iti patañjalir
iti yogabhāṣye spaṣṭam (Vol II, p. 294, Vyākaraṇa-Mahābhāṣya, with
Pradīpa & Uddyota, Motilal Banarsidass, 1967). This notion of
identity of the two (or three, if we include Caraka-Patañjali
identity) is implicitly present in Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya (1.147)
that was quoted earlier. Similar statements from Cakrapāṇi etc. are
probably echoes of Bhartṛhari. There is no hard-core evidence to
support this identity, but the belief in this identity is strong among
traditional pandits. Late Pandit Narahari Narayan Bhide, who was one
my most revered teacher in Pune around 1962, strongly believed that
Patañjali the grammarian had a yogic understanding of Pāṇini's grammar
and that is why we should trust him. However, as we were reading
Patañjali's discussion of taparas tatkālasya, we came across a dual
interpretation of tapara as both a bahuvrīhi and a tatpuruṣa supported
by Patañjali, and later continued in works like the Siddhāntakaumudī.
This discussion in the Mahābhāṣya surprised Pandit Bhide, because, as
he understood it, Patañjali was not certain about the accentuation of
the compound tapara. It could not simultaneously be ādyudātta (=
bahuvrīhi) and antodātta (= tatpuruṣa). This discussion made Pandit
Bhide rethink his belief in the identity of the grammarian Patañjali
and the author of the Yogasūtras. You may find some interesting
discussion of the history of mythologization of various personalities
in Sanskrit grammar in my 1997 article: "Who Inspired Pāṇini?
Reconstructing the Hindu and Buddhist Counter-Claims", JAOS, Vol 117,
No 3, pp. 444-465. If you don't have access to this publication, let
me know. I can send it to you as an attachment. Best,

Madhav

Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor of Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

> --- On Tue, 5/10/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification - reg.
> To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 9:12 PM
>
> 10 05 11
>

> Dear Dr.Kannan,Thanks for the information about the M.P.

>
> Just
> to remove misunderstanding I emphasize did not take side in the debate. My own
> opinion is that no conclusive evidence is available for the identity or otherwise
> of the Mahābhāṣyakāra and the Yogasūtrakāra. We cannot say on the basis of
> definite evidence that they were not one, and not also the otherway round.
>
> I give a few examples of how just the non-mention might not be decisive in
> determining the date of something. It is by all evidence probable that the
> Aitareya-Brāhmaṇa presupposes the ten-maṇḍala Ṛgveda. But the term for the
> Ṛgveda as a ‘collection of ten’ namely Daśatayī  is found later. The Niruktakāra definitely
> knew the twenty-kāṇḍa Paippalāda-Śaṃhitā but an explicit mention of the twenty
> kāṇḍas as such is met with first in Patañjali’s Mbh.
>
> In the history of our languages there are examples of how extremely ancient
> words not attested in Classical Sanskrit surface up in NIA languages. Something
> might live below the surface and may show its face in congenial environment.
>
> Best wishes
>
> DB
>

> From: Sampath Kannan <ks_kan...@yahoo.com>
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 May 2011 7:40 PM
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification - reg.
>
> There is much truth in what Dr DB has said.
>
> Rather than attempting to answer the central issue, for which there is anyhow not much to add (as far as I know at least), I just submitted some
>  information that could be gathered reg. Patanjali, so that it may be of some use to somebody in some manner to the problem.
>
> The Matsya Purana ref. to Patanjali that I have noted down is 195.25.  I am not in a position right now to check and confirm.
>
> The main contention of Westerners regarding the identity or otherwise of Patanjali(s), is that the claim/assertion of identity is not made within the Indian tradition for something like ten centuries. And afterwards, there are many.
>
> The question of DrTSRukmani attains significance in the light of this.
>
> I look forward to write-ups that may enlighten us
>  a little more.
>
> KSKannan
> Bangalore
>

> --- On Tue, 5/10/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Mon, 5/9/11, Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> From: Dipak Bhattacharya <dbhattacharya200...@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification - reg.
> To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 9:25 PM
>
> I do not claim myself to be a grammarian. But it seems that it may not be too far fetched to assert that there is
> nothing to prove the identity of the grammarian and the author of the Yogasūtras.
> Das Gupta had his own ideas with many such identifications. He thought that the
> words brahmasūtrapada in the Gītā meant Bādarāyaṇa’s Brahmasūtras. But
> see Deussen on this. Far from Das Gupta’s idea the Gītā was the foundation of
> later Vedānta including the Brahmasūtras.
>
> Best
>
> DB
>

> From: T.S. Rukmani <rukm...@alcor.concordia.ca>
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Monday, 9 May 2011 9:10 PM
> Subject: RE: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification - reg.
>
> Thank you. Yes I am familiar with this
> verse. But that does not answer my specific question. I look forward to what
> other grammar-scholars have to say on the subject.
>
> Dhanyavadah
>
> TSR
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
>   
>
> Dr. T.S. Rukmani
>
> Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies
>
> Concordia University
>
> Department of Religion
>
> 1455
>   de Maisonneuve Blvd West
>
> Montreal, Quebec
>
> H3G 1M8
>
> tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085
>
> fax: 514-848-4541
>

> email: rukm...@alcor.concordia.ca

>
>   
>
> From:
>  bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>  bvpar...@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of hnbhat B.R.
>
> Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 9:25 PM
>
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
>
> Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re:
> Patanjali - the identification - reg.
>
>   
>
>   
>

> 2011/5/8 T.S. Rukmani <rukm...@alcor.concordia.ca>

>
> Das Gupta in his Yoga Philosophy questions why commentators of the
> grammatical school like Bhartrhari and others did not mention or refer to the
> identity of the two Patanjalis. Can any ‘vyaakarana’ please enlighten me on
> this. Is it true. If my memory serves me right  isn’t there some reference
> to the YS in Nagojibhatta’s  commentary as well as in the Vakyapadiya
> first chapter vrtti.  It can bear on the date of the YS Patanjali  
>
> Dhanyavadah
>
>  
>
>   
>
> Traditionally it is believed that Patanjali, is has written in three
> different Shastra-s as per the following verse of salutation in  Bho0ja's Rājamārttanda commentary on the Yoga Sūtras 
>
>   
>
> योगेन चित्तस्य पदेन वाचां
>
> मलं शरीरस्य च वैद्यकेन.
>
> योपाकरोत् तं प्रवरं मुनीनाम्.
>
> पतञ्जलिं प्राञ्जलिरानतोस्मि.
>
>   
>
> yogena cittasya padena vācām |
>
> malaṁ
> śarīrasya ca vaidyakena |
>
> yo'pākarot taṁ
> pravaraṁ
> munīnām |
>
> patañjaliṁ
> prāñjalirānato'smi | |
>
>   
>

> [I bow to the sage Patanjali, who gave us yoga...
>
> read more »

[T.S. Rukmani]

Dear Madhav,
Thank you so much for that brilliant summarization of the material available. So, in other words, while tradition believes in the identity of the two Patanjalis there is no hardcore evidence we have so far. Do send me as an attachment your article on “Who inspired Panini”. In the light of Nagesa’s statement I am wondering why Das Gupta would make such a definitive statement that ‘grammarians’ have not commented on this at all. I hate to think he could be wrong.
Om
TSR

Dr. T.S. Rukmani
Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies
Concordia University
Department of Religion
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West
Montreal, Quebec
H3G 1M8
tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085
fax: 514-848-4541

email: ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca

Dear Rukmani,

Madhav

--

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Rukmani,

I have been gathering material on the Yoga and Vyakara.na relationship consciously since 1971. I read a short paper on this topic in 1972, concentrating on the Yoga-bhaa.sya and the Vaakyapadiiya, along with its V.rtti, at the annual meeting of the American Oriental Society held in Baltimore. Since then I have given a lecture or two on the topic, widened to include other sources, but I have not yet published the results. Apart from other demands on my time, academic and practical, the main reason for the delay is the absence of access to manuscripts of certain Sanskrit texts (these are not edited critically or the text available in the editions needs to be checked in some parts at least against older mss). One of these days I hope to be able to publish a long article or a short monograph on what I have found out. In the meanwhile, you can get some idea of my historical thinking on Pat the grammarian from my three articles in the volume _Linguistic Traditions of Kashmir_ (New Delhi: D.K. Printworld) and from the references made to me in the Yoga volume, edited by G.J. Larson and R.S. Bhattacharya of the _Encyclopaedia of Indian Philosophies_ (Delhi: Motilal Banarssidas).

Here I will restrict myself to the relatively better supported conclusions I have arrived at in my unpublished material. In stating them I will assume that the chronology given at present for early Indian philosophical works is valid, although I am feeling increasingly doubtful about its validity. At least a good case seems possible for dating *some* of the works to a more ancient past.

1. The tradition of the identity of the three Pat.s (medicine, grammar, Yoga) is very probably much older that the 10th century A.D. It is unlikely to be later than the 3rd or 4th century A.D. in its origin. Bhart.rhari cannot be dated later than 425/450 A.D. as C. Kunhan Raja and others have pointed out long ago. In fact, if the dating of Malla-vaadin in the Jain sources is accepted (as Muni Jambuvijaya does; the dating has been set aside by Erich Frauwallner through an essentially circular argument), BH should be dated minimally about a hundred years earlier).

True, BH does not speak of the identity of three Pat.s in explicit terms, but we also cannot discount the possibility that his commentators preserved old traditional information (see VP 1.147already cited by Dr. Subrahmanyam Korada; the number would be 174 according to Wilhelm Rau's critical edn of the kaarikas). Helaa-raaja (not later than early 10th century A.D.), as available to us in the summary version by Pu.nya-raaja for the second kaa.n.da, presumes a tradition according to which the verse (also) conveyed bhaa.syakaara-pra;sa.msaa, which can be true of Pat only as a contributor to medicine, grammar, Yoga. Secondly, we should note that it would have been sufficient in the immediate context for BH to speak of the vaag.do.sas (and their removal). Yet he refers to kaaya do.sas and buddhi-do.sas (and their removal) as well. Using the triplet kaaya, vaac and buddhi/manas is not unusual, but which among the following two possibilities is more likely, given that BH talks of the *removal of do.sas* of kaaya, vaac and buddhi *in a collective way* *with a terminology -- cikitsaa, lak.sa.na and adhyaatma -- that is attested in the MB (cikitsaa is attested through cikitsya) and given the later *widespread references (references found in all three relevant system traditions) to Pat as a contributor to medicine, grammar, Yoga: (a) his verse is shaped by an awareness of the association of Pat with the systems of medicine, grammar, Yoga or (b) his verse was written with no particular intellectual in mind? Possibility (b) exists, but possibility (a) seems preferable in the current state of our knowledge. Note also my next point which is more objective in nature.

2a. The Yoga-bhaa.sya can be said to give good evidence to the effect that the Yoga-suutra author Pat and the MB author Pat were one and the same person in its (YB's) author's view (for want of time, I cannot get into the extensive discussion, largely text-critical in nature, that this remark may necessitate; let me just assure you that I have supported this thesis through several logically independent arguments).

2b. The YB is usually ascribed to Vyaasa or Veda-vyaasa. Actually it is a work of Vindhya-vaasa (also mentioned as Vindhya-vaasin). The part veda-vyaasena bhaa.site in Vaacaspati-mi;sra's introductory verse to his commentary on the YB is simply a corruption of vindhya-vaasena bhaa.site. An exchange of the places of ya and va somewhere in manuscript transmission has led to someone's (understandable but wrong) correction of vindhya-vaasa to the more familiar veda-vyaasa. Vaadi-deva-suuri cites a part of the YB as coming from Vindhya-vaasa. The views expressed in the YB largely agree with the ones attributed elsewhere to Vindhya-vaasa.

2c. From all available indications, Vindhya-vaasa is older than BH. The identity of Yoga Pat and Vyaakara.na Pat presumed in the YB, therefore, almost certainly predates BH and makes it more likely that the tradition of the identity of three Pat.s reaches back at least into the early 5th or late 4th century A.D.

(I can also demonstrate that the YB is a text that has undergone some wear and tear even before Vaacaspati's time. For this reason, too, it is more likely to be an older text.)

(The view that the YB is influenced by the thinking of certain Buddhist thinkers usually placed in the 4th or 5th century by our historians is neither unavoidable nor sustainable upon scrutiny. The only inference the internal evidence in the YB permits is that the YB author reacted to certain Buddhist views, which could very well be older than the 4th century A.D.)

3. The tracing of the pattern/tradition to an earlier period makes it more likely but does not prove that the three Pat.s were in fact one individual. If we are good historians, we have to respect the limitation of the available evidence and leave the issue for a defensible solution when new evidence becomes available.

4. Pat writing in the Vaidyaka tradition need not be thought of as authoring a self-standing work. He could have, like Caraka, carried out only a pratisa.mskaara of an existing text, and this could have been mainly in the area of complementing Vaidyaka with Saa.mkhya-Yoga thinking.

5. Larson, in the Yoga volume of the EIP mentioned above, proposes that we should differentiate between a Saa.mkhya Pat and Yoga Pat. His reasoning is unconvincing to me.

6. This post probably suffers from too much summarizing and writing done under the pressure of other work. At present you will have to believe that I have analyzed the relevant textual evidence comprehensively and carefully.

7. Personally I do not care much about whether I disagree with this great scholar or that great scholar of the past. I respect all of them, but not to the extent of compromising the researcher's dharma that he should let the evidence speak for itself in the best possible manner. If you wish to see an example of how even great and industrious minds miss something crucial and commonsensical under the sway of contemporary historical constructions and intellectual currents, please see my article "Unity of the Miimaa.msaas: how historiography hides history," published in the recently released felicitation volume for Prof. Vacaspati Upadhyaya. The title of the volume is Vacaspati-vaibhavam, and it is published by D.K. Printworld in New Delhi.

With best wishes,

ashok

[T.S. Rukmani]

Dear Ashok,
Thank you very much for taking the trouble to present so many aspects of this question and presenting them in your own inimitable way. You have brought in a richness of material and a critical appraisal of that material to bear upon the question of the identity of the Patanjalis. The way in which you are able to tackle material from so many diverse fields is truly impressive. I will try and acquire the said books in which the relevant articles on Patanjali appear when I am in India this summer.I look forward to your long article/monograph on the topic whenever it is published.
All the best
Om
Rukmini

-----Original Message-----
From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ashok Aklujkar
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 12:05 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification -

Dear Rukmani,

With best wishes,

ashok

--

[Madhav M. Deshpande]

Dear Rukmani,

Ashok has given lot of food for thought. It seems to me that a
possible source for the traditional identification of the Patañjali of
grammar and Patañjali of Yoga may be the Mahābhāṣya use of the
expression vāg-yoga-vid in the Paspaśāhnika. While the commentaries
of Kaiyaṭa and Nāgeśa do not interpret the term yoga in this
expression as referring to the yoga of the Yogasūtra, this expression
may have given rise to a conception that someone like Patañjali was
both a vāg-vid and yoga-vid. The term vāg-yoga could likely have been
given an extended meaning in later times. Certainly Bhartṛhari needs
to be looked at carefully. There are a number of studies of this
expression and you may find them listed in the following document:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/45695103/Ramseier-Y-A-Bibliography-on-Bartrhari

Best wishes,

Madhav Deshpande

[Sampath Kannan]

Prof Deshpande, Just to explore, offhand, some possible yogic links: It is not impossible that mahatA devena sAmyam that Patan"jali speaks of may be related to Yoga, sAmya itself being spoken of sometimes as the nature/fruit of Yoga. While Kaiyata has dRs"TAdRs"Ta-phalAbhyAm abhyudaya-nis's'reyasAbhyAm, Nages'a  elucidates : tad-adhyayana-tanmUla-vyAkaraNadhyayanAbhyAm pus"pitaH, tadartha-bhAvanayA janita-tattvajn"Ana-rUpa-phalaH phalitaH. To be corroborated perhaps with vyAkaraNAt padasiddhiH     padasiddher artha-nirNayo bhavati / arthAt tattvajn"Anam     tattvajn"AnAt param s'reyaH // Bhartrhari's own ajihmA rAjapaddhatiH may have something reminiscent of  rAja-yoga. Mathara on sAn'khyakArikA 22 shows the significance of a-ha-m (of the first and last varNa-s, a and h(a) in mAhes'vara-sUtra-s: catus"s"s"Ti-varNaiH parAdi-vaikharI-paryantAbhidheyaiH yat kimapy abhidhIyate, buddhyA samarthya tat-sakalam AdyantAkAra-hakAra-varNa-dvaya-grahaNenoparisthita-piNDIkRtAnukAriNA bindunA bhUs"itaH . Regards, KSKannan Bangalore --- On Thu, 5/12/11, Madhav M. Deshpande <mmd...@umich.edu> wrote:

[T.S. Rukmani]

Dear Madhav,
Thank you for pointing out how the expressions yoga-vid and vaag-yoga could have played a role in the identification process. Thanks for the Bhartrhari link as well.
Best wishes
Rukmani

Dr. T.S. Rukmani
Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies
Concordia University
Department of Religion
1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West
Montreal, Quebec
H3G 1M8
tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085
fax: 514-848-4541
email: ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca

[T.S. Rukmani]

Dr Kannan,

Thank you very much for all your contributions on this topic.

All the best

Rukmani

 

 

 

Dr. T.S. Rukmani

Professor and Chair in Hindu Studies

Concordia University

Department of Religion

1455 de Maisonneuve Blvd West

Montreal, Quebec

H3G 1M8

tel: 514-848-2424 ext. 4085

fax: 514-848-4541

email: ruk...@alcor.concordia.ca

 

[rniyengar]

Dear Prof.Aklujkar, Namaste.
You wrote: “Here I will restrict myself to the relatively better

supported conclusions I have arrived at in my unpublished material. In
stating them I will assume that the chronology given at present for
early Indian philosophical works is valid, although I am feeling
increasingly doubtful about its validity. At least a good case seems

possible for dating *some* of the works to a more ancient past”

This statement is thought provoking and I wish more and more scholars
look at the issue of chronology afresh. I am sharing my own discomfort
in the present historical delineation of some of the traditional
subjects like Yoga (sutras) which is under discussion in this thread.
I like to make the following points for consideration.

1. Instead of attributing the authorship of a ‘book/grantha’ to a
particular person when he is unidentifiable, except emotionally, it is
preferable to refer to the available work as a school/tradition/
parampara/sampradaaya. This would help, at the least, discussions
connected with relative chronology.
2. In the present discussion on ‘Patanjali’ a curious issue is
sidelined. That is evidence internal to the ‘tradition’ as contained
in the Yoga Sutra(YS). This is astronomical in nature and hence
perhaps ignored or interpreted as yogic/psychic/mystical.
3. In the vibhuti Paada of YS we read: Candre taaraavyuuha jn~aanam|
dhruve tadgati-jn~aanam| naabhicakre kaayavyuuha jn˜aanam |
(3.28,29,30). The first two of these refer to gaining astronomical
knowledge through meditation. The third one is about anatomical
knowledge. The context is clearly about gaining physical/secular
knowledge through yogic practice. It has been the common practice for
writers to interpret ‘dhruva’ as the pole star. But when it comes to
‘tadgati’ they seem to harp back on to the previous sutra and say it
is the ‘motion of the stars/heavenly bodies etc. I have not read all
the ancient commentaries on the above. But I feel ‘tadgati’ should
mean ‘tasya dhruvasya gatih’. I am not going to discuss whether such
knowledge is valid physically. But the fact is YS admits that ‘dhruva
was moving’ and this movement was considered an important ‘physical
knowledge’.
4. Quite interestingly Alberuni in 11 cent took the trouble to mention
in his Persian translation of YS ( following some commentary?) that “…
the pole star is in a complex of 14 stars shaped as a s’akvara i.e.
the safan…..knows the motion of the stars. …. Hindus talk about the
‘Siss’umaara which is called in Persian ‘susmar’ etc…[All details with
cross refs are available in S.Pines & T.Gelblum Bull. School of
Oriental & African studies Univ. of London, 46, 1983, pp 258-304.]
5. The crux of the matter is “dhruva known to be at the end of the
constellation s’is’umaara, once known to be fixed, was moving at some
epoch”. This was due to precession of earth’s axis and would have
been observed during 1500-1000 BC. MaitrayaNi Upanis.at also has this
reference, as does MBh, BrahmaaNDa & VishNu PuraaNa. There may be
other texts that I am not aware of which refer to the movement of
Dhruva.
6. Since YS also carries the footprint of Dhruva’s movement, the
school of YS gets dated to around 1000 BC and not as late as the
beginning of the Common Era as generally made out. The apparent
contradiction of Dhruva being interpreted as ‘Fixed’ but said to be
moving provides a chronological perspective to the ‘S’aastra
paramparaa’.
7. The above does not identify Patanjali in any manner. But we can
perhaps claim that YS contains pre-PaaNinian elements in its Vibhuti
paada.

With regards

RN Iyengar

[Sampath Kannan]

Dear Dr RNIyengar, Your very approach is novel and stimulating. You bring to bear scientific data/approach on many an ancient text/issue and throw light on unexpected issues and from unexpected angles, enriching our knowledge thereby.  But I have one small problem with what you have said. And I only wish that you refute my objection !! In Yoga Sutra-s 3.26, 3.27, 3.29, we have the pattern of concentration on A leading to the knowledge of the realm of B; presumably, A is the "head" of the realm in each case. The A items are : sUrya/candra/nAbhicakra. The B items are : bhuvana/tArA-vyUha/kAya-vyUha. It is in 3.28 that we have A = dhruva, and B = tad-gati. B here does not look like a realm(vyUha). In other words, it is only here that motion seems to be spoken of. Which is to say, the set of three are spatial, and the last, temporal. Absolute motion is always measured, as science tells us, against stationary things; else it is relative. (And if we jump levels and speak very macroscopically, it is hard to find anything absolutely stationary). As 3.29 refers to the body, it is obvious, the author has reverted to the microcosm, after a mental "visit" to the pinnacle of creation (whatever it may mean). Though bhuvana should encompass the tArA-vyUha also, sUrya is said to "overpower" this realm (Cf. Reason 7 (=abhibhava) in sAnkhya-kArikA 7, vAcaspati thereon); and further, candra is traditionally spoken of as the "Lord" of naks"atra-s (Cf. gItA 10.21 naks"atrANAm aham s'as'I; also vocables such as uDupa, naks"atres'a). Against all this background, can tad-gati refer to the "spatially"  referred to thing(s) - the immediately preceding being the first to qualify (=tArA-vyUha), and if a gati has been posited of bhuvana also, even of that ? My argument is mainly based on a notion of symmetry, but if deeper considerations can give a better perspective, they are welcome. --- On Fri, 5/13/11, rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> wrote:

From: rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Patanjali - the identification - To: "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

[nagarajpaturi]

Excuse me for responding to this old thread.

 

It was greatly fulfilling to go through this immensely enlightening thread.

 

I was just thinking of this possibility:

 

After a hundred years or more from now, a researcher finds Noam Chomsky's writings on linguistics and politics. He wants to know whether Noam Chomsky the author of linguistics works and Noam Chomsky the writer on politics are the same or different. To accept the two Chomskys to be the same, he demands for internal evidence within the texts on the two fields. People provide all evidences from outside the texts. The researcher insists on internal evidences. People fail to provide. The researcher refuses to agree that the two Chomskys are one and the same person.

 

How I wish someone interviewed Patanjali with questions such as " How do you manage to handle such diverse fields as Vyakarana, Yoga and Ayurveda?" . Panjali gives answers such as ( like Chomsky's "I don't bring my politics into my class room") " I don't bring into any one of my fields any one or two of the other two fields" .

 

Is it not necessary for those scholars on this list here who work in diverse fields to ensure internal evidences for their being one and the same person in all their works in different fields, if they want people to know that they are one person writing in different fields? Necessary only if they want . Did Patanjali want?

 

बुधजनविधेयः

 

नागराजः