Things get a little murky now for a bit, so be warned. Clarity comes back in a bit, but for the moment, there are some issues in the tissues of our sutras.
In the previous posts we have been talking about the siddhis, or powerful skills, that the Yogi/ni may acquire through profound meditative means with samyama on various objects (in the sense of an object of meditation). For the most part, despite being somewhat of an esoteric nature, they are all within the realm of possibilities...more or less.
However, the following dozen or so sutras present some serious problems with both meaning and syntax. It is also with these dozen or so sutras that ALL of the commentaries and translations (I am currently working with 8-10 versions) do one of two things: 1) say absolutely nothing and just provide an "accepted" translation that has been handed down through the ages; or 2) go into major metaphysical discourse about the nature of Yoga being dualistic and attempt to squeeze or extract the entirety of Samkhya-Dualist philosophy into a few sutras, where these ideas are blatantly lacking in all the rest of the Yoga Sutras.
This is troublesome, but seems to be symptomatic of a systemic flaw here...these handful of sutras we are about to delve into seem to be dubious at best as to how they fit into the Sutras as a whole, and when they begin to go into some detail, (namely with the concept of the 5 vayus, which will see in the next post), they are lacking in several ways.
Moreover, the syntax and grammar is very different from much of the rest of the text. There has been very strong research done (primarily on the first book of) Patañjali from a stylistic analysis vantage point, and the conclusion by Philipp Maas is that Patañjali and Vyãsa, the principle commentary are one and the same. Well, that would be quite something, but is not overly convincing in the latter portions of the book, such as we find ourselves in now.
However, it is the nearly unwavering exaltation of Vyãsa's word to be the final word, that I believe many translations and commentaries have suffered over the years as a result. Ascribing a date and an author to ANY Indian text is just asking for trouble. And, furthermore, to ascribe the Yoga Sutras to a SINGLE author AND commentator is, in my opinion, flirting with disaster.
As such, this portion of the Sutras reads more like a cobbling-together of ideas that may or may not be crucial to the text as a whole, and may or may not be Patañjali (or whoever else) at all...They almost seem to be like lecture notes for a Professor, jotted down before a lesson, and are incomplete at best and almost incoherent at worst.
Having said all of this, I am still intending to puzzle through these linguistic nettles and philosophical quagmires as I know that soon things clear up again for the rest of the Sutras.
So, let's proceed with the next 3 sutras, 3.35-37..., the first two being taken together due to the "tatah" that leads off 3.36.
sattva-purushayor-atyanta-asamkIrnayoh pratyaya-avishesho bhogah parãrthatvãt sãrtha-samyamãt purusha-jñãnam 3.35
tatah prãtibha-shrãvana-vedanã-ãdarsha-ãsvãda-vãrtãh jãyante 3.36
Giving us to begin:
Because of the nature of Being for another, experience is the concept of non-distinction for the utterly unmixed Purusha and Sattva, and from samyama on Being for Itself, the knowledge of Pursusha comes about. 3.35
From that/then (tatah), (exalted/illuminated) hearing, touch, sight, taste and smell arise. 3.36
As I said, the grammar takes a radical turn, the concepts being put forth are incongruous and there is great ambiguity in the meaning based upon syntax, because we could just as easily translate these two as:
The nature of Sattva and Purusha are utterly pure, and the experiencing the concept of them being indistinct come from the nature of dualistic thought; by contemplating on Being in and of itself, the nature of Purusha is known. 3.35
At that moment, intuition and the 5 senses are born. 3.36
The difference in 3.36 is whether prãtibha is taken as being a distributive adjective (divine/illuminated/exalted) for the following five nouns of the 5 senses, as is usually the case because Vyãsa does, or if it is the "sixth sense" of intuition, and is a noun too, meaning "illumination/intuition". There is no way to know from the grammar because it is a long compound with six elements...so the tradition sticks with Vyãsa, though the second reading is quite different, and more interesting to be fair.
These two (or one) sutra/s are completely out of left field, and the entire meaning of "sutra" as we learned long ago is that they are connected by a thread of thought or meaning from one to the next. This is a complete disjunct, with the only stretch being that it could related to the samvit of the citta from 3.34, which is gained by samyama on the heart, but that is a stretch...
What we may glean from this is that samyama of some sort can lead to jñãnam of the Purusha (the eternal Soul). But, as we will continue to see more and more, that leads us to a non-Dualistic reading with Kaivalya (utter aloneness/singularity) being the apex (book 4) of our Yogic quest. So, for now, shall we put a pin in this and move on?
Trust me, we should...
3.37 is more lucid and seems to put us back on track again after this strange and highly incomplete and non-sequitor digression on Purusha and the senses...but, there is a hitch to this one as well as we shall presently see:
te samãdhãv-upasargã vyutthane siddhayah 3.37
Or,
These are obstacles (upasargã) to samãdi [and/but] are powerful skills (siddhayah) for the one who is straying/deviating. 3.37
Generally, this sutra is taken as a caveat emptor, or buyer beware, warning for the aspiring Yogi/ni. In other words, it is taken to mean, Siddhis are powerful skills for one who is deviating from a Yogic path, but for the one engaged with true Samãdhi, they are obstacles. This is in line with most of the Sutras as Yoga is all about removing obstacles, but, there is one slight hitch...
This sutra appears in the midst of two sets of Siddhis, the ones we already looked at in YS 3.16-34, then we have our weird interlude of 3.35-36, then this warning, then some truly supernatural Siddhis that many take for being dangerous or beyond the physical realms of possibility.
So, the question is: does "te", that is "these" refer to the Siddhis PREVIOUSLY mentioned, which do not seem overly dangerous, or do they refer to the Siddhis ABOUT to be listed, and which could easily be abused, or does it apply to ALL Siddhis (siddhayah is the plural in Sanskrit)??
Simple answer. We do not know. This is the one and only reference to the Siddhis (and one of only 4 direct references/uses of "siddhi" in the entire text) being obstacles (any for that matter) and it is completely ambiguous what is the scope of "te".
Personally, I am inclined to believe that it applies to all powerful skills, because they can all be abused. The quality does not lie in the skill itself (that is, it is neither good nor bad), but in the application. Second place would be that "te" applies to just the following Sutras we are about to see, and finally, and least likely, just to the preceding Siddhis.
Take-home message...back to Uncle Ben's advice to Peter...great power comes with great responsibility...
With that in mind, we continue next time with the Super Siddhis!
In the previous posts we have been talking about the siddhis, or powerful skills, that the Yogi/ni may acquire through profound meditative means with samyama on various objects (in the sense of an object of meditation). For the most part, despite being somewhat of an esoteric nature, they are all within the realm of possibilities...more or less.
However, the following dozen or so sutras present some serious problems with both meaning and syntax. It is also with these dozen or so sutras that ALL of the commentaries and translations (I am currently working with 8-10 versions) do one of two things: 1) say absolutely nothing and just provide an "accepted" translation that has been handed down through the ages; or 2) go into major metaphysical discourse about the nature of Yoga being dualistic and attempt to squeeze or extract the entirety of Samkhya-Dualist philosophy into a few sutras, where these ideas are blatantly lacking in all the rest of the Yoga Sutras.
This is troublesome, but seems to be symptomatic of a systemic flaw here...these handful of sutras we are about to delve into seem to be dubious at best as to how they fit into the Sutras as a whole, and when they begin to go into some detail, (namely with the concept of the 5 vayus, which will see in the next post), they are lacking in several ways.
Moreover, the syntax and grammar is very different from much of the rest of the text. There has been very strong research done (primarily on the first book of) Patañjali from a stylistic analysis vantage point, and the conclusion by Philipp Maas is that Patañjali and Vyãsa, the principle commentary are one and the same. Well, that would be quite something, but is not overly convincing in the latter portions of the book, such as we find ourselves in now.
However, it is the nearly unwavering exaltation of Vyãsa's word to be the final word, that I believe many translations and commentaries have suffered over the years as a result. Ascribing a date and an author to ANY Indian text is just asking for trouble. And, furthermore, to ascribe the Yoga Sutras to a SINGLE author AND commentator is, in my opinion, flirting with disaster.
As such, this portion of the Sutras reads more like a cobbling-together of ideas that may or may not be crucial to the text as a whole, and may or may not be Patañjali (or whoever else) at all...They almost seem to be like lecture notes for a Professor, jotted down before a lesson, and are incomplete at best and almost incoherent at worst.
Having said all of this, I am still intending to puzzle through these linguistic nettles and philosophical quagmires as I know that soon things clear up again for the rest of the Sutras.
So, let's proceed with the next 3 sutras, 3.35-37..., the first two being taken together due to the "tatah" that leads off 3.36.
sattva-purushayor-atyanta-asamkIrnayoh pratyaya-avishesho bhogah parãrthatvãt sãrtha-samyamãt purusha-jñãnam 3.35
tatah prãtibha-shrãvana-vedanã-ãdarsha-ãsvãda-vãrtãh jãyante 3.36
Giving us to begin:
Because of the nature of Being for another, experience is the concept of non-distinction for the utterly unmixed Purusha and Sattva, and from samyama on Being for Itself, the knowledge of Pursusha comes about. 3.35
From that/then (tatah), (exalted/illuminated) hearing, touch, sight, taste and smell arise. 3.36
As I said, the grammar takes a radical turn, the concepts being put forth are incongruous and there is great ambiguity in the meaning based upon syntax, because we could just as easily translate these two as:
The nature of Sattva and Purusha are utterly pure, and the experiencing the concept of them being indistinct come from the nature of dualistic thought; by contemplating on Being in and of itself, the nature of Purusha is known. 3.35
At that moment, intuition and the 5 senses are born. 3.36
The difference in 3.36 is whether prãtibha is taken as being a distributive adjective (divine/illuminated/exalted) for the following five nouns of the 5 senses, as is usually the case because Vyãsa does, or if it is the "sixth sense" of intuition, and is a noun too, meaning "illumination/intuition". There is no way to know from the grammar because it is a long compound with six elements...so the tradition sticks with Vyãsa, though the second reading is quite different, and more interesting to be fair.
These two (or one) sutra/s are completely out of left field, and the entire meaning of "sutra" as we learned long ago is that they are connected by a thread of thought or meaning from one to the next. This is a complete disjunct, with the only stretch being that it could related to the samvit of the citta from 3.34, which is gained by samyama on the heart, but that is a stretch...
What we may glean from this is that samyama of some sort can lead to jñãnam of the Purusha (the eternal Soul). But, as we will continue to see more and more, that leads us to a non-Dualistic reading with Kaivalya (utter aloneness/singularity) being the apex (book 4) of our Yogic quest. So, for now, shall we put a pin in this and move on?
Trust me, we should...
3.37 is more lucid and seems to put us back on track again after this strange and highly incomplete and non-sequitor digression on Purusha and the senses...but, there is a hitch to this one as well as we shall presently see:
te samãdhãv-upasargã vyutthane siddhayah 3.37
Or,
These are obstacles (upasargã) to samãdi [and/but] are powerful skills (siddhayah) for the one who is straying/deviating. 3.37
Generally, this sutra is taken as a caveat emptor, or buyer beware, warning for the aspiring Yogi/ni. In other words, it is taken to mean, Siddhis are powerful skills for one who is deviating from a Yogic path, but for the one engaged with true Samãdhi, they are obstacles. This is in line with most of the Sutras as Yoga is all about removing obstacles, but, there is one slight hitch...
This sutra appears in the midst of two sets of Siddhis, the ones we already looked at in YS 3.16-34, then we have our weird interlude of 3.35-36, then this warning, then some truly supernatural Siddhis that many take for being dangerous or beyond the physical realms of possibility.
So, the question is: does "te", that is "these" refer to the Siddhis PREVIOUSLY mentioned, which do not seem overly dangerous, or do they refer to the Siddhis ABOUT to be listed, and which could easily be abused, or does it apply to ALL Siddhis (siddhayah is the plural in Sanskrit)??
Simple answer. We do not know. This is the one and only reference to the Siddhis (and one of only 4 direct references/uses of "siddhi" in the entire text) being obstacles (any for that matter) and it is completely ambiguous what is the scope of "te".
Personally, I am inclined to believe that it applies to all powerful skills, because they can all be abused. The quality does not lie in the skill itself (that is, it is neither good nor bad), but in the application. Second place would be that "te" applies to just the following Sutras we are about to see, and finally, and least likely, just to the preceding Siddhis.
Take-home message...back to Uncle Ben's advice to Peter...great power comes with great responsibility...
With that in mind, we continue next time with the Super Siddhis!
No comments:
Post a Comment