Page:A History of Indian Philosophy Vol 1.djvu/246

23° The KaPila and the Patali/ala Sa,,?zkhya [cn. criticized; the putting of an "iti" (the word to denote the conclu- sion 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 "£ti" 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 Patafijali 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 siitras, 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 siitras, whereas the average number of siitras 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 Patai'ijali. Weber had tried to con- nect him with Kapya Pataf!1chala of Satapatha BrahmaI!a 1; in Katyayana's Viirttika we get the name Patafijali which is ex- plained by later commentators as patallta[t. aiijalaya(1 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 PaJ)ini called the AI ahii- bhiiya with the Patafijali of the Yoga szUra. This theory has been accepted by many western scholars probably on the strength of some Indian .commentators who identified the two Patafijalis. Of these one is the writer of the Pataiija/icarita (Ramabhadra Dlkita) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth century. The other is that cited in Sivarama's commentary on Viisa'i.Jadattil which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century. The other two are king Bhoja of Dhar and CakrapaI!idatta, I WcLer's IRstor)' of India1l Literature, p. 223 n.