On the Identity of the two Patanjalis

Summary

The article examines whether the authors of the Mahābhāṣya (a grammatical commentary) and the Yoga‑sūtra are the same person. Despite repeated refutations, belief in their identity persists among Eastern and Western Indologists. H. Jacobi argued that the works differ significantly in vocabulary and philosophical concepts and cited compounds in the Yoga‑sūtra that violate Panini’s rules. B. Liebich countered that exceptions to Panini’s rule exist, but the author points out that the Mahābhāṣya strictly applies the precedence rule and would not allow compounds like pracchardana‑vidhāraṇa found in the Yoga‑sūtra. The article argues that differences in vocabulary and usage between the two texts reflect distinct stylistic and philosophical contexts. Terms such as svarūpa, ananta, viśeṣa, antar‑bahir‑aṅga, pratiyogin and saṃskāra occur in both texts but with different meanings, while important grammatical terms (pratyavāra, upasarga, pratyaya) are used differently or absent. The Mahābhāṣya employs samādhi‑bhāṣya rather than samādhi and lacks key Yogic terms like samādhi and bhavaṇa. The author notes that the Yoga‑sūtra uses grammatical terminology metaphorically, reflecting a philosophical discourse rather than a technical grammatical treatise. By analysing vocabulary, the article concludes that the stylistic and conceptual differences between the Mahābhāṣya and Yoga‑sūtra preclude common authorship. The Mahābhāṣya follows Panini’s grammar closely and comments on Kātyāyana’s vārttika, while the Yoga‑sūtra employs a concise aphoristic style with a philosophical focus on liberation. The author suggests that the similarity in names may have fostered the belief in a single Patanjali, but linguistic evidence undermines the identification. Thus the article reaffirms that the two Patanjalis were distinct scholars and warns against conflating grammatical and Yogic traditions.