he two
Patanjalis by some Yoga and medical commentators of a later
age. And if other proofs are available which go against such
an identification, we could not think the grammarian and the
Yoga writer to be the same person.

Let us now see if Patanjali's grammatical work contains anything
which may lead us to think that he was not the same
person as the writer on Yoga. Professor Woods supposes that the
philosophic concept of substance (_dravya_) of the two Patanjalis
differs and therefore they cannot be identified. He holds that
dravya is described in _Vyasabha@sya_ in one place as being the
unity of species and qualities (_samanyavis'e@satmaka_), whereas
the _Mahabha@sya_ holds that a dravya denotes a genus and also
specific qualities according as the emphasis or stress is laid on
either side. I fail to see how these ideas are totally
antagonistic. Moreover, we know that these two views were held by

232

Vya@di and Vajapyayana (Vya@di holding that words denoted
qualities or dravya and Vajapyayana holding that words denoted
species [Footnote ref 1]). Even Pa@nini had these two different ideas in
"_jatyakhyayamekasmin bahuvacanamanyatarasyam_" and
"_sarupanamekas'e@samekavibhaktau_," and Patanjali the writer of
the _Mahabha@sya_ only combined these two views. This does not show
that he opposes the view of _Vyasabha@sya_, though we must remember
that even if he did, that would not prove anything with regard
to the writer of the sutras. Moreover, when we read that dravya
is spoken of in the _Mahabha@sya_ as that object which is the
specific kind of the conglomeration of its parts, just as a cow is
of its tail, hoofs, horns, etc.--"_yat
sasnala@ngulakakudakhuravi@sa@nyartharupam_," we are reminded of
its similarity with "_ayutasiddhavayavabhedanugata@h samuha@h dravyam_"
(a conglomeration of interrelated parts is called dravya) in the
_Vyasabhasya_. So far as I have examined the _Mahabha@sya_ I have
not been able to discover anything there which can warrant us
in holding that the two Patanjalis cannot be identified. There
are no doubt many apparent divergences of view, but even
in these it is only the traditional views of the old grammarians
that are exposed and reconciled, and it would be very unwarrantable
for us to judge anything about the personal views
of the grammarian from them. I am also convinced that the
writer of the _Mahabha@sya_ knew most of the important points of
the Sa@mkhya-Yoga metaphysics; as a fe