Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Considering the fact that the Mīmāṃsā, the Vedānta, the Sāṃkhya, and the Yoga schools owe their origin directly to the Vedas, the Brāhmaṇas, and the Upaniṣads, it may be expected that the doctrines of these would have been systematized and put together into the form of the Sūtras earlier than those of the Vaiśeṣika and the Nyāya schools, the essential tenets of which had their beginnings in a later and different kind of literature. This expectation, however, seems to be belied by the fact that the present Sāṃkhya-sūtras have been proved to belong to a very late period, as late as the fourteenth century a.d.; and the Yoga-sūtras are now believed by a number of scholars, following Professors Jacobi and Woods, to be as late as the fourth or fifth century a.d. Now, while the gap of an early systematic work on the Sāṃkhya is filled up by the Sāṃkhya-kārikā, or it may be explained by the surmise that there was an early Sūtra work, either a shorter form of the present one or altogether different from it, which is lost, the Yoga-sūtras are all that we have as a systematic exposition of the Yoga doctrines, and there is no reason to believe that they were preceded by another work of a similar nature. • The question, then, is whether the systematization of such an early school of thought as the Yoga would have been postponed until as late as the fourth or fifth century a.d., and until after the systematization of the doctrines of even the Vaiśeṣika and the Nyāya schools, which began later on, and the Sūtras of which definitely contain a reference to the Yoga doctrines of mystic intuition and concentration.
page 365 note 1 Cf. “Antiquity of the Sāṃkhya-sūtras,” by Vira, Udaya, Proceedings and Transactions of the Fifth All-India Oriental Conference, vol. i, pp. 104–6Google Scholar.
page 366 note 1 Journal of American Oriental Society, xxxi, 1911Google Scholar.
page 367 note 1 E.g. Rajendralal Mitra: “Even in the sameness of object the course (courses ?) of the two are distinct, from diversity of the thinking principle,” Bibl. Indica edition; and Woods, “Because, while the (physical) thing remains the same the mind-stuffs are different (therefore the two are upon) distinct levels of existence,” “Yoga System of Patafijali”, HOS.
In the above translations I find no justification for the renderings italicized by me.
page 368 note 1 YS. iv, 13 : te vyahta-sūhsmāṣḥ guṇātmānaḥ; and iv, 14: pariṇāmaikatvād vastu-tattvam, in which an object is said to be composed of the three constituents of sattva, rajas, and tamas.
page 368 note 2 Cf. Dasgupta, , History of Indian Philosophy, i, p. 233, note 1Google Scholar.
page 370 note 1 Yoga System of Pataṇjali, Introd., xvii.
page 370 note 2 Ibid., xviii.
page 371 note 1 Aitareya-Ārarjtyaha, ii, 6; Ait. Upaniṣad, iii, 3, 3.
page 372 note 1 However, see Dasgupta, on this point, History of Indian Philosophy, i, pp. 231–2Google Scholar.
page 372 note 2 JAOS. xxxi, p. 28; italics are mine.
page 373 note 1 JAOS. xxxi, p. 28.
page 373 note 2 Also Chānd. iii, 14, 3 ; Bṛhad. iv, 1, 1; vi, 3, 13.
page 373 note 3 JAOS. xxxi, p. 28.
page 373 note 4 Yoga System of Patānjali, Introduction.