explained
by later commentators as _patanta@h anjalaya@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 Pa@nini called the _Mahabha@sya_
with the Patanjali of the _Yoga sutra_. This theory has been
accepted by many western scholars probably on the strength of
some Indian commentators who identified the two Patanjalis.
Of these one is the writer of the _Patanjalicarita_ (Ramabhadra
Dik@sita) who could not have flourished earlier than the eighteenth
century. The other is that cited in S'ivarama's commentary on
_Vasavadatta_ which Aufrecht assigns to the eighteenth century.
The other two are king Bhoja of Dhar and Cakrapa@nidatta,

__________________________________________________________________

[Footnote 1: Weber's _History of Indian Literature_, p. 223 n.]

231

the commentator of _Caraka,_ who belonged to the eleventh
century A.D. Thus Cakrapa@ni says that he adores the Ahipati
(mythical serpent chief) who removed the defects of mind, speech
and body by his _Patanjala mahabha@sya_ and the revision of
_Caraka._ Bhoja says: "Victory be to the luminous words of
that illustrious sovereign Ra@nara@nigamalla who by composing his
grammar, by writing his commentary on the Patanjala and by
producing a treatise on medicine called _Rajam@rga@nka_ has like the
lord of the holder of serpents removed defilement from speech,
mind and body." The adoration hymn of Vyasa (which is considered
to be an interpolation even by orthodox scholars) is also
based upon the same tradition. It is not impossible therefore that
the later Indian commentators might have made some confusion
between the three Patanjalis, the grammarian, the Yoga editor,
and the medical writer to whom is ascribed the book known as
_Patanjalatantra,_ and who has been quoted by S'ivadasa in his
commentary on _Cakradatta_ in connection with the heating of
metals.

Professor J.H. Woods of Harvard University is therefore
in a way justified in his unwillingness to identify the grammarian
and the Yoga editor on the slender evidence of these
commentators. It is indeed curious to notice that the great
commentators of the grammar school such as Bhart@rhari, Kaiyya@ta,
Vamana, Jayaditya, Nages'a, etc. are silent on this point.
This is indeed a point against the identification of t