Patanjali and Plato?

Reading the first chapter of Ramamurti Mishra’s translation and interpretation of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, I was struck by the uncanny resemblance of one of his core concepts to an explanation of the “soul” by Socrates in Plato’s Phaedrus. Herewith, quotes from each:

Mishra: “All manifestations, from matter to mind, are unfolding of the resources of prakriti [primordial energy]. Since every effect is latent in its cause and since every cause is the effect of its previous cause, prakriti is the only uncaused cause. If we were to admit a cause of prakriti and another cause of that cause, we could go on ad infinitum. From the principle of cause and effect in the world of relativity , it is deduced that prakriti is beyond the relative world and that it is the ultimate basis of the entire empirical world.”

Plato/Socrates (we can’t know if Plato is merely putting words into Socrates mouth): “Well then, first we must comprehend the truth about the nature of soul, both divine and human, buy observing experiences and actions belonging to it; and the beginning of our proof is this:

“All soul is immortal. For that which is always in movement is Immortal; that which moves something else, and is moved by something else, in ceasing from movement ceases from living. So only that which moves itself, because it does not abandon itself, never stops moving. But it is also source and first principle of movement for the other things which move. Now a first principle is something which does not come into being. For all that comes into being must come into being from a first principle, but a first principle itself cannot come into being from anything at all; for if a first principle came into being from anything, it would not be a first principle. Since it is something that does not come into being, it must also be something that does not perish. For if a first principle is destroyed, neither will it ever come into being from anything itself nor will anything else come into being from it, given that all things must come into being from a first principle. It is in this way, then, that that which moves itself is a first principle of movement. It is not possible than for this either to be destroyed or to come into being, or else the whole universe and the whole of that which comes to be might collapse together and come to a halt, and never again have a source from which things will be moved and come to be.” [my emphasis]

The similarity can only be described as uncanny. Also, it seems from what I have seen so far, that much of the ontology of Patenjali is very similar to Plato’s idealistic theory of forms. i.e. the difference/similarity between stone and a statue, wood and a table, etc…..

Both traditions were reactions to the Axial Age, which I believe was a reaction to the evolution of philosophical self-awareness. Prior to this, humans had not idea they might be existentially separate from the rest of their environment. Realizing it scared the you-know-what out of them. I really believe we are in the beginning of a new Axial Age, which will require a new set of metaphysical understandings.