Patanjali

← Encyclopedia

A name, a text, and the architecture that text lays out: that is the whole of Patanjali. He is the figure to whom tradition assigns the Yoga Sutras, the foundational treatise of classical yoga — fewer than two hundred terse aphorisms that took an older and diffuse body of contemplative practice and bound it into a formal philosophy. Around the man almost nothing solid can be drawn. Around the work a great deal can. The tradition itself treats this as no defect: a sutra is not meant to display its author. It is meant to compress a teaching into the fewest possible syllables, a mnemonic thread (sutra means a thread) onto which a living commentarial voice strings the explanation. The sage recedes so that the system may stand.

The figure and the dating question

What can be said of Patanjali the person is mostly negation. He left no biography, no datable patron, no incidental detail of place. Hindu tradition has long identified the author of the Yoga Sutras with the grammarian Patañjali, who composed the Mahabhashya, the great commentary on Panini’s Sanskrit grammar, in roughly the second century BCE — and a later devotional tradition went further, fusing both with the author of a medical treatise, so that one legendary Patanjali was said to have purified speech, mind, and body in three works. The conflation is itself datable: no surviving text identifies the grammarian with the yoga author before the eleventh-century king and commentator Bhoja, whose own commentary on the sutras takes the equation for granted. The Indologist Louis Renou, comparing the language, grammar, and vocabulary of the Mahabhashya with that of the Yoga Sutras, argued that the two works point to two different hands. Most modern scholarship treats them as distinct, while acknowledging that the identification has its own long life inside the tradition and cannot simply be waved away as error.

The dating of the Yoga Sutras is genuinely unsettled, and the range proposed is wide — from several centuries before the Common Era to the middle of the fifth century CE, with the later end of that span now more commonly accepted. A significant strand of recent scholarship, associated above all with Philipp A. Maas, reframes the problem entirely. On this reading the Yoga Sutras and their oldest commentary were not a later gloss laid over an earlier scripture but a single composite work — the Patañjalayogashastra — produced by one author around 400 CE, the aphorisms and their explanation issuing together. The case rests in part on the text’s apparent engagement with the Buddhist thinker Vasubandhu, active in the fourth and fifth centuries, and on the evidence of manuscript colophons that present sutra and commentary as one. If that thesis holds, the author and the first commentator collapse into a single figure, and the biographical thinness of Patanjali becomes less a gap to be filled than a feature of how the work was always meant to be read.

The definition that opens the work

The treatise wastes no time on preamble. Its first aphorism announces that what follows is the teaching of yoga; its second gives the whole project in four words — yogash citta-vritti-nirodhah — yoga is the stilling of the fluctuations of the mind. Everything in the four chapters is an unfolding of that sentence. Citta is the whole instrument of inner experience — not the brain but the composite of intellect, ego, and lower mind through which awareness ordinarily operates. Vritti are its turnings, its modifications, the ceaseless movements by which it takes the shape of whatever it perceives, remembers, imagines, or sleeps through. Nirodha is their cessation, their settling, the bringing of that activity to rest. And the third aphorism states the consequence: when the turnings cease, the seer abides in its own nature. The aim is not a special content of consciousness but the absence of all imposed content — consciousness resting transparent in itself rather than mistaking itself for the shapes it keeps assuming. The five vrittis the text enumerates (right knowledge, error, conceptual construction, sleep, and memory) make the point exact: even correct cognition is a turning, and even dreamless sleep is an activity of the mind, not its silence.

The four padas

The work is arranged in four padas — quarters, or chapters — of uneven length, in the received text roughly fifty-one, fifty-five, fifty-six, and thirty-four aphorisms, near two hundred in all.

The first, the Samadhi Pada, opens with the definition and treats the goal directly: the nature of the stilled mind, the kinds of absorption available to the practitioner of advanced concentration, and the means — sustained practice (abhyasa) and dispassion (vairagya) — by which the turnings are quieted. It is here that the text introduces Ishvara, the Lord, as one possible support for the discipline, a point taken up below.

The second, the Sadhana Pada, turns to the practitioner who is not yet so advanced, and lays out the path of action — kriya yoga — and the diagnosis of bondage. It introduces the five kleshas, the afflictions that drive the mind’s turning, and it begins the account of the eight limbs, presenting the first five as the outer, preparatory members of the discipline.

The third, the Vibhuti Pada, takes up the three inner limbs — concentration, meditation, and absorption — and then catalogs, soberly and at length, the extraordinary powers (vibhutis or siddhis) said to arise as concentration deepens upon chosen objects. The fourth, the Kaivalya Pada, treats the final state itself: kaivalya, the isolation or aloneness of pure consciousness, together with a sustained argument, against rival schools, about the nature of mind, the reality of objects, and the mechanism of release. The fourth chapter’s polemic is part of why scholars read the text against the Buddhist philosophy of its era.

The eight limbs

The best-known portion of the work is the ashtanga, the eight limbs, set out across the second and third chapters. They are not, in the text’s own framing, a staircase to be climbed rung by rung so much as eight mutually supporting members of a single discipline, each purifying and steadying attention so that the deeper stillness becomes possible. The architecture runs as follows.

The first two limbs are ethical. The yamas are restraints — non-violence, truthfulness, non-stealing, continence, and non-grasping — governing conduct toward the world. The niyamas are observances — purity, contentment, austerity, self-study, and devotion to the Lord — governing the inner life. The text presents these not as moral preliminaries to be gotten past but as conditions of a mind that can be stilled at all: a turbulent ethical life keeps the citta in motion.

The third limb is asana, posture. In the sutras this occupies only a few lines and asks for one thing — a seat that is steady and comfortable, so that the body ceases to be a distraction. The fourth, pranayama, is the regulation of the breath; the fifth, pratyahara, is the withdrawal of the senses from their objects, the turning of attention inward. These five constitute the outer limbs, the work done upon body, breath, and the gateways of perception.

The final three are the inner limbs, the antaranga, and the text groups them together under a single term, samyama, the binding-together of the three when they are trained on one object. Dharana is concentration, the fixing of attention on a single point. Dhyana is meditation, the unbroken flow of attention toward that point. Samadhi is absorption, the state in which the object alone shines forth and the act of attending seems to drop away, the distinction between the knower and the known growing thin and at last dissolving. The progression from the gross outer disciplines to the subtle inner ones is the spine of the system: a graded refinement of attention until the mind becomes so transparent that it no longer obscures the consciousness behind it.

These limbs describe the shape of a practice, not a manual for performing it. The sutras themselves are reticent on technique; for the operative detail the tradition always turned to a living teacher and to the commentaries.

The Samkhya metaphysics it presupposes

The Yoga Sutras do not argue their cosmology so much as assume it. The metaphysics behind the practice is largely that of Samkhya, the enumerative dualist school with which yoga is paired as one of the six orthodox darshanas, the recognized systems of Indian philosophy. That metaphysics turns on two eternal, irreducible realities. Purusha is pure consciousness — inactive, attributeless, a sheer witness, never an agent, and (in the classical reckoning) plural rather than single, so that there are innumerably many such witnessing selves. Prakriti is primordial nature — unconscious, singular, eternally active, the uncaused material cause out of which everything unfolds, including the mind and intellect themselves. Crucially, in this scheme the citta whose turnings yoga stills belongs entirely to prakriti: thought, ego, and intellect are subtle matter, not consciousness. Consciousness merely illumines them.

Bondage, on this account, is a case of mistaken identity. Purusha, reflected in the polished surface of the intellect, comes to take the mind’s turnings for its own — to say I think, I suffer, I act — when in truth it only witnesses a process unfolding within nature. The entanglement is not a literal binding, since the witness can never actually be touched by what it watches; it is a confusion, a failure to discriminate the seer from the seen. This is the philosophical work the eight limbs serve: by stilling the vrittis, the practitioner removes the agitation in which the misidentification occurs, until the discrimination becomes possible and consciousness recognizes its own distinctness from everything it had called itself.

On one point Patanjali’s yoga departs sharply from classical Samkhya. The Sankhya-karika, the school’s defining text, is nirishvara — it explains the cosmos without a creator and pronounces the existence of God unproven. Yoga, by contrast, is seshvara: it admits Ishvara, the Lord, as a special purusha, one never touched by the afflictions, by action and its residues, untainted by the cycle the others are caught in, and associated with the sacred syllable om. Yet even here the role is restrained. Ishvara serves as one efficacious object of devotion among the means of stilling the mind, not as the metaphysical ground of the world or the dispenser of liberation. The dualism remains the load- bearing structure; the Lord is admitted into it without being made its center. This is the difference that, more than any other, distinguishes the two sister-schools, and it is why treating Samkhya-Yoga as a single doctrine erases precisely what defines each.

The five kleshas

The diagnosis of bondage is concentrated in the kleshas, the five afflictions the second chapter names as the soil from which suffering and the mind’s turning grow. The first is avidya, ignorance — and it is the root, the ground in which the other four take hold. The text defines it precisely: ignorance is taking the impermanent for the permanent, the impure for the pure, the painful for the pleasant, the not-self for the self. From it springs asmita, the sense of the sense of I-am-ness, the very identification of the witnessing consciousness with the instrument of mind. From that ego follow the two great currents of reactivity: raga, attraction toward what gratifies, and dvesha, aversion from what pains. The fifth is abhinivesha, the clinging to life, the deep instinctive will to continue that the text says grips even the wise. The five are arranged as a genealogy of bondage: from a primal misperception comes a false self, from the false self come craving and recoil, and beneath them all runs the fear of ceasing. The eight-limbed practice is, in this light, the systematic attenuation of these afflictions until ignorance itself is burned away.

Kaivalya and the siddhis

The goal has a name that resists the language of union. It is kaivalya — isolation, aloneness, the standing-apart of pure consciousness. Where many contemplative traditions describe the summit as a merging, a dissolving of the self into a greater whole, Patanjali’s vocabulary moves the opposite way. Liberation is disentanglement: the witnessing purusha is freed not by joining anything but by ceasing to be confused with prakriti, recognizing its own nature as wholly distinct from the matter it had taken itself to be. When that discrimination is complete and stable, nature has, in the school’s striking image, finished its performance for that particular witness; having shown the purusha its own freedom, prakriti withdraws, as a dancer leaves the stage once seen. Because the witnessing selves are plural, kaivalya is an individual event — the world goes on for all the others still bound.

Between the practice and that release lies the third chapter’s long inventory of siddhis, the powers that arise from deep samyama — knowledge of past and future, of other minds, of the moment of one’s death; powers over the body, strength, subtlety, and movement. The text treats these with a notable double caution. It records them plainly, neither denying them nor sensationalizing them, as natural by-products of a concentration that has grown powerful. And then it turns on them: these very attainments, it warns, are obstacles to samadhi, perfections in the worldly sense that become snares for the one who is supposed to be seeking only release. A power gained is a place the mind can settle and attach — another vritti, however refined. The discipline that produces the siddhis must, at its height, refuse them. That sober warning, more than the catalog itself, is the text’s characteristic note.

The commentarial tradition

A work this compressed cannot stand alone, and it never did. The sutras came bound from very early to the Yoga-bhashya, the foundational commentary ascribed to Vyasa and dated to roughly the fourth or fifth century CE — the same legendary sage to whom Hindu tradition credits the arrangement of the Vedas and the composition of the great epic, though the attribution of this commentary to that figure is conventional rather than historical. The bhashya achieved a nearly canonical authority: it is the lens through which the aphorisms were read for more than a millennium, and the later commentators chiefly elaborate it rather than dispute it. It is this near-fusion of root-text and gloss that underwrites the modern thesis that the two were one work from the start.

Around the bhashya a dense scholastic literature accumulated. Vachaspati Mishra, the ninth- or tenth-century polymath who wrote authoritative commentaries across several of the orthodox schools, composed the Tattvavaisharadi, the most significant of the early subcommentaries. The eleventh-century king Bhoja wrote the Rajamartanda, the work in which the identification of the yoga author with the grammarian first surfaces. And in the sixteenth century Vijnanabhikshu — the late synthesizer who labored to reconcile Samkhya, yoga, and Vedanta — produced the Yogavarttika, judged by many the most penetrating commentary after Vyasa’s own. Through these layers the Yoga Sutras were studied less as a fixed scripture than as the kernel of a living conversation, each generation re-threading the beads.

Eclipse and recovery

The system’s later history runs through a long eclipse. For something like seven centuries, from roughly the twelfth to the nineteenth, the Yoga Sutras fell into relative obscurity; by the sixteenth century classical Patanjala yoga as a distinct living discipline had nearly gone extinct, and the copying of manuscripts dwindled. The contemplative authority of the period passed in good part to the hatha tradition, the yoga of bodily and energetic discipline whose manuals — among them the Hathayogapradipika — addressed a different audience with different ends. The terse Samkhya-grounded treatise of the sage was not so much refuted as quietly set down.

Its recovery belongs to the encounter between India and the modern West. British Orientalists of the early nineteenth century put the text back into scholarly circulation, and at the century’s close Swami Vivekananda gave it a second life on a far larger stage. His lectures and the book that grew from them, Raja-Yoga, presented Patanjali’s eight-limbed discipline to Western audiences as the very heart of yoga and as a practical science of the inner life, naming it the royal yoga — raja yoga — and fixing for a global readership the idea that yoga, properly understood, meant this. The Theosophical Society and Helena Blavatsky lent the text their own prestige and read it through an esoteric lens. From that double inheritance — the Orientalist edition and the Vedantic-Theosophical popularization — the modern prominence of the Yoga Sutras descends. The irony is sharp and often noted: the global discipline of mats and postures that now carries the word yoga draws its prestige and its name from this work while having little to do with its contents, for the single limb concerning posture occupies only a handful of lines and asks merely for a steady, comfortable seat.

Texts, editions, and scholarship

The Sanskrit Yoga Sutras and the classical commentaries are old enough to stand in the public domain by date, and several historic English renderings circulate freely. The library holds the 1912 translation by Charles Johnston — The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, an interpretive rendering shaped by the Theosophical milieu of its day and inclined to read the aphorisms through a Western esoteric frame; it is one English voice among many for a text whose brevity has always made it depend on the reader who unpacks it. The companion hatha manual, the Hathayogapradipika in Pancham Sinh’s 1914 translation, documents the bodily tradition that overtook classical yoga during its eclipse. Vivekananda’s Raja-Yoga, with his own running commentary on the sutras, is preserved within the Complete Works — the single most consequential modern reframing of the text.

The standard scholarly edition in English is Edwin F. Bryant’s The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali: A New Edition, Translation, and Commentary (North Point Press, 2009), which prints each aphorism in Sanskrit, transliteration, and translation, then opens it out through the classical commentarial tradition, especially Vyasa (publisher record). For the philosophical setting, Gerald J. Larson and Ram Shankar Bhattacharya’s Yoga: India’s Philosophy of Meditation, the twelfth volume of the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies (Motilal Banarsidass / Princeton, 2008), is the comprehensive reference; the same series’ Samkhya volume supplies the metaphysical backdrop. On the dating and the unity of sutra and commentary, the decisive recent intervention is Philipp A. Maas, “A Concise Historiography of Classical Yoga Philosophy,” in Periodization and Historiography of Indian Philosophy (Vienna, 2013), which lays out the Patañjalayogashastra thesis and the c. 400 CE dating. For an accessible dedicated overview of the school, with full attention to the four padas, the eight limbs, and the kleshas, Ferenc Ruzsa’s “Sankhya” and the “Yoga” entries in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (iep.utm.edu/yoga) treat the system carefully and cite the primary sources. A term that recurs throughout and would merit its own treatment is Samkhya as the classical darshana in its own right; the present account links the broader pre-classical phase and points the reader to the specialized literature for the rest.

The continuous thread across all of it is the one the sutra form names: a teaching pared to the bone, handed forward not as a finished book but as a thread the next reader is bound to take up. Patanjali, whoever he was, is the knot at one end of it.

→ In the library: The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali (Johnston, 1912) · The Hathayogapradipika (Sinh, 1914) · The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda (Mayavati edn, 1924) — Raja-Yoga

→ Related: Yoga · Yoga Sutras Of Patanjali · Proto Samkhya Pre Classical Samkhya · Hinduism · Swami Vivekananda · Dualism · Vyasa · Meditation · Pranayama