Monday, September 17, 2018
Sunday, September 16, 2018
Yoga is... (Yoga Sutras 4.27-34)... The End
I only know one thing...and that is that I know No-thing...
One of the things that made the Athenians mad enough to condemn Socrates to death is his inadvertent bringing God to be his witness at his trial. Let God, and in this case, Apollo, be my witness to testify that "I am not a wise man," Socrates says in so many words, causing a ruckus in the courtroom to say the least.
In Plato's Apology (which literally means a "defense") of Socrates, the accused relates the story of how once Chaerephon, a fellow Athenian, went to the Oracle at Delphi and asked her who is the wisest man in Athens? The answer was that no-one was wiser than Socrates, with the emphasis on not saying that Socrates was wisest, but that no one was wiser. Socrates took this challenge to heart and went around Athens trying to find someone wiser, or for that matter, who truly knew anything at all. His conclusion was that everyone claims to "know" something, but in reality, we do not really know and nobody had true wisdom as such. And, since Socrates never claimed to know anything, rather, as above, he claimed that the only thing he did know was that he did not know anything...(That is, by the way, Socratic irony par excellence), which means at least he was not a hypocrite about being wise. The Athenians were not amused and sentenced him to death.
We are approaching that sentiment very quickly in the closure of Patañjali's Yoga Sutras as we shall see momentarily. Similar, but different; different, yet similar.
In 4.26, we arrived at the state of mind in which one needs to be in to engage with the ultimate concept of Yoga, Kaivalya, and that mind is one that is fully attuned to the process of discernment and discrimination, that is viveka. Viveka is the path of conscious decisions and processing of information, having shed the veils of a-vidya and the fog of samskãras so that one can see things as they are and not how we want them to be, which are often dramatically different things.
So, the stage is set, the well is primed, and the mind is engaged in viveka, however, we are human after all, as 4.27 reminds us:
tac-chidreshu pratyaya-antarãni samskãrebhyah 4.27
or,
Other ideas/concepts/perceptions arise from the samskãras within the lapses (of the viveka-mind). 4.27
In other words, to paraphrase Horace's lament (via Pope), even Homer nods...When the mind is not fully engaged then we relapse into the perceptions and prejudices governed by the samskãras, or mental impressions. So, at times, we shall all fall back into old habits, and from that comes indiscretion and avidyã rears its ugly head.
4.28, however, reminds us that there is a remedy:
hãnam-eshãm kleshavad-uktam 4.28
The extinction/cessation of these lapses have already been spoken of, as with the kleshas. 4.28
Here, Patañjali reminds us of YS II.10-11 which tells us that when the mind is back in its original state (pre-tainted by samskãras and avidyã), then the kleshas are eliminated, and dhyãna is the key to that return. To return to those highly important sutras, that is when we learn that avidyã is the root of all kleshas, or obstacles to our Yogic path, and consequently the source of our suffering, or duhkham. And, it is at that point that Patañjali provides the 8-limb program, which culminates in the samyama of dhãranã-dhyãna-samãdhi, about which is the focus of Book III.
The lynchpin of the samyama triad, namely dhyãna, or intensive, focused meditation, is once again the answer to ridding ourselves of the kleshas, clearing out the storehouse of karma (YS 4.6), and now also the lapses in our discretion. But, once again, this is not mere navel-gazing, for as we also have seen, that leads to an infinite loop, which leads us nowhere.
Rather, it is intensive, focused meditation on the fact that the Seer (I) and the Seen (thou) are not separate. To see that in everything, at all times then is Kaivalya. Blake's oft-quoted quatrain from "Auguries of Innocence" comes to mind:
To see the World in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the Palm of your Hand,
And Eternity in an Hour...
One of the things that made the Athenians mad enough to condemn Socrates to death is his inadvertent bringing God to be his witness at his trial. Let God, and in this case, Apollo, be my witness to testify that "I am not a wise man," Socrates says in so many words, causing a ruckus in the courtroom to say the least.
In Plato's Apology (which literally means a "defense") of Socrates, the accused relates the story of how once Chaerephon, a fellow Athenian, went to the Oracle at Delphi and asked her who is the wisest man in Athens? The answer was that no-one was wiser than Socrates, with the emphasis on not saying that Socrates was wisest, but that no one was wiser. Socrates took this challenge to heart and went around Athens trying to find someone wiser, or for that matter, who truly knew anything at all. His conclusion was that everyone claims to "know" something, but in reality, we do not really know and nobody had true wisdom as such. And, since Socrates never claimed to know anything, rather, as above, he claimed that the only thing he did know was that he did not know anything...(That is, by the way, Socratic irony par excellence), which means at least he was not a hypocrite about being wise. The Athenians were not amused and sentenced him to death.
We are approaching that sentiment very quickly in the closure of Patañjali's Yoga Sutras as we shall see momentarily. Similar, but different; different, yet similar.
In 4.26, we arrived at the state of mind in which one needs to be in to engage with the ultimate concept of Yoga, Kaivalya, and that mind is one that is fully attuned to the process of discernment and discrimination, that is viveka. Viveka is the path of conscious decisions and processing of information, having shed the veils of a-vidya and the fog of samskãras so that one can see things as they are and not how we want them to be, which are often dramatically different things.
So, the stage is set, the well is primed, and the mind is engaged in viveka, however, we are human after all, as 4.27 reminds us:
tac-chidreshu pratyaya-antarãni samskãrebhyah 4.27
or,
Other ideas/concepts/perceptions arise from the samskãras within the lapses (of the viveka-mind). 4.27
In other words, to paraphrase Horace's lament (via Pope), even Homer nods...When the mind is not fully engaged then we relapse into the perceptions and prejudices governed by the samskãras, or mental impressions. So, at times, we shall all fall back into old habits, and from that comes indiscretion and avidyã rears its ugly head.
4.28, however, reminds us that there is a remedy:
hãnam-eshãm kleshavad-uktam 4.28
The extinction/cessation of these lapses have already been spoken of, as with the kleshas. 4.28
Here, Patañjali reminds us of YS II.10-11 which tells us that when the mind is back in its original state (pre-tainted by samskãras and avidyã), then the kleshas are eliminated, and dhyãna is the key to that return. To return to those highly important sutras, that is when we learn that avidyã is the root of all kleshas, or obstacles to our Yogic path, and consequently the source of our suffering, or duhkham. And, it is at that point that Patañjali provides the 8-limb program, which culminates in the samyama of dhãranã-dhyãna-samãdhi, about which is the focus of Book III.
The lynchpin of the samyama triad, namely dhyãna, or intensive, focused meditation, is once again the answer to ridding ourselves of the kleshas, clearing out the storehouse of karma (YS 4.6), and now also the lapses in our discretion. But, once again, this is not mere navel-gazing, for as we also have seen, that leads to an infinite loop, which leads us nowhere.
Rather, it is intensive, focused meditation on the fact that the Seer (I) and the Seen (thou) are not separate. To see that in everything, at all times then is Kaivalya. Blake's oft-quoted quatrain from "Auguries of Innocence" comes to mind:
To see the World in a Grain of Sand,
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the Palm of your Hand,
And Eternity in an Hour...
This is the vision, the discretion that Kaivalya requires through dhyãna. It is the conscious awareness that leads to letting go of the dualities to arrive at the ultimate singularity.
We continue then with 4.29-30 which introduces us to the most curious phrase in all of the sutras:
prasamkhyãne'apyakusIdasya sarvathã viveka-khyãter-dharma-meghah samãdhih 4.29
tatah kleshakarmanivrittih 4.30
Giving us,
The "dharma-cloud" of samãdhi comes for the one whom is even disinterested/dispassionate about the constant perception of viveka. 4.29
Then, the kleshas and karma (or karmic affliction) are released. 4.30
Or, read slightly differently together:
The samãdhi (total integration/synthesis of Yoga) of the dharma-megha (dharma-cloud) comes about for one who is utterly free of attachment, even from the process of viveka and then, the affliction of karma is released. 4.29-30
The dharma-megha, or Dharma-cloud, then is a curious entity that does not appear anywhere else in Sanskrit philosophy, but is vaguely Buddhist in context...treading the Dhamma-pada, or path of Dharma is the highest order of enlightenment for the jivan-mukti, or one who is released in this life-time. None of the commentators actually know what the dharma-megha is, so I am not going to speculate further than the visual of one being fully enraptured by Dharma, meaning, one who has found his or her Dharma in life via the path of Yoga and then lives it, rather than just talks about it. The samãdhi, or total integration and synthesis then of Yoga is now at hand.
The dharma-megha also sounds similar, yet different to the mystical Christian concept of "The cloude of unknowyng" or "The Cloud of Unknowing," a chiefly medieval concept (via Neo-Platonists...) that to know God, to truly know God, means to let go of everything one knows...to forget in order to remember. The Greek concept of Truth as well is a-letheia, or un-forgetting in order to remember what we have lost, looking at the Universe for what it is, not what we make it. The veil of illusion, of Mãya, or demonic magic that the Buddha overcomes is none other than the human constructs and concepts and prejudices that we build up for ourselves and promote as "truths," yet as Socrates found, they are not wisdom, but merely opinions.
And so, for the Yogi/ni, the dharma-cloud engulfs and enshrouds, but does not blind nor veil, but reveals, apo-kalyptestai...
tadã sarvãvarana-mala-ãpetasya jñãnasyãdantyãjñeyam-alam 4.31
or,
Then, from the infinity from the result of the maladies of concealments have been removed, there is little to be known. 4.31
In other words, when we know longer seek to know by reason, and have fully integrated the Dharma, there is nothing much to be known. In other words, when the Dharma is known, and one walks the walk, there is nothing really more to know. However, it is then a continuous process of integrity, not an easy path. But, as Mark Twain is attributed to have said once, "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." Here, if you live the Dharma, you don't need to know anything...Sounds easy, living it is another thing all together.
4.32 continues:
tatah kritãrthãnãm parinãma-krama-parisamãptir-gunãnãm 4.32
or,
From this, with their purposes now fulfilled, the sequence of permutations of the gunas comes to an end. 4.32
Echoing the Bhagavad Gita of Krishna's directive to Arjuna to eventually transcend the gunas, because Krishna is beyond the gunas, and Krishna is the Universe, when the Dharma-megha reigns supreme in the Yogi/ni's life, the gunas are irrelevant as they have served their purpose for the mundane, but now they are inconsequential.
And so, we come to the End with 4.33-34:
kshana-pratiyogI parinãmãparãnta-nirgrãhyah kramah 4.33
purushãrtha-shUnyãnãm gunãnãm pratiprasavah kaivalyam svarupa-pratishthã vã cit-shaktir-iti 4.34
Giving us,
The sequence (of permutations) is grasped at the extreme end of change, which corresponds to small increments of Time. 4.33
Ending with:
Kaivalya, the ultimate singularity of liberation, the returning to the original state of the gunas, devoid of all purpose for Purusha, is steadfast in one's own nature, known as the power of consciousness. 4.34
When there exists illusion of the separation between the Seer and the Seen (YS 3-4), this begins a series of perceived changes (parinãma) that are linked by infinitely small increments of Time (kshana), which causes the gunas to hold sway over our Self/Atman/Purusha because of the power of avidyã. Following the path of Yoga as has been laid out by Patañjali, these increments of Time no longer exist as in the state of Kaivalya, the Seer and the Seen are united (as they were never separate in reality) and the svarupa, or true form of our Selves is experienced by the samãdhi of the Dharma-megha, or the power of consciousness as true awareness...and the cessation of the fluctuations of the mind-stuff then happens.
Friday, September 14, 2018
Going, going, ... Ta-daa!! (Yoga Sutras 4.22-26)
As we ended the last time, we saw that if the mind becomes purely self-reflexive as a way towards inquiry into the nature of things, we are left with a hall of mirrors, infinitely reflecting each other's reflection. Although superficially this could seem like (my favorite metaphor for Being; hence my main blog) the image of Indra's Net as the infinitely-expansive net that has reflective gems at every interstice, reflecting each other ad infinitum, it is not quite the same, and the following sutras provide us with a clearer picture of just how.
The concept of solipsism, or the idea that universe is the mental creation of a single entity (and when it manifests with humans, you get pathological narcissism), comes to mind (pun intended). However, what we saw in the past few sutras, this is a pitfall, much like the siddhis, because ultimately, it is all smoke and infinite mirrors. It is the navel gazing back.
This is not the trajectory we are heading along with Patañjali's concept of Yoga. Instead of beginning with the concept of a singular mind manipulating the universe, we are instead, many minds moving towards the actual singularity of the universe. The gems within Indra's Net are no longer seeking to know which individual gem they are, but rather, the Net itself...But, it is not quite that simple. We still need to further understand the nature, of the (ultimately false) concept that there is a division at all, and this brings us to the final reconciliation of the Seer and the Seen which was introduced at the very beginning of our adventure.
So, turning back to the text, at 4.22, we see the futility of the hall of mirrors for the mind, and that in the end, as with YS 2.1, it is the stilling and cessation of such futile processes that brings us closer to understanding.
citer-apratisamkramãyãs-tad-ãkãra-ãpattau svabuddhi-samvedanam 4.22
Giving us,
There is a moment when the mind is/becomes stilled/non-reflexive, as this manifestation of the mind occurs, the true intellect is identified. 4.22
Here we see that it is the chattering of the mind once again that obscures the real intellect. Psycho-babble and navel gazing won't do the trick, which leads us to what is the final obstacle in 4.23:
drishthri-drishyoparaktam cittam sarvãrtham 4.23
Or,
The mind that is skillful in all matters is tainted by the Seer and the Seen 4.23
Despite being not just a Jack of all trades, even if the mind is a Master of them, it is no less tainted by the Seer and the Seen. In other words, it still is separated from the singularity because there is an object and a subject. There is still the concept of "I" and "thou" and there is division. The paradox of this, however, is then exposed in the next two sutras 4.24-25, leading us to the grand finale with 4.26.
tad-asamkhyeya-vãsanãbhish-citram-api parãrtham samhatya-kãritvãt 4.24
vishesha-darshina ãtma-bhãva-bhãvanã-nivrittih 4.25
Rendering,
Because of its nature of being conjoined (i.e. Seer/Seen), the mind is dependent upon something else though that mind is manifested/variegated by way of countless past impressions. 4.24
For the one who sees this distinction, there is a stilling of the perception of the existence of the Self (ãtman). 4.25
In other words, the mind is multi-faceted gem with countless sides, but, so long as it is stuck in the web of samskãras, or mental impressions and prejudices, it is but a gem reflecting upon its own existence. However, as we see in 4.25, when that mind/gem gets this, then the concept of being a gem disappears. It is the paradox of not being able to name the Tao. Here, for the mind/Self/ãtman to finally understand its nature, it has to see that this distinction is the very cause of not-knowing...To truly KNOW THYSELF then, is too completely and utterly UN-KNOW THYSELF.
And so, we have arrived.
A friend of mine from high school was easily one of the most brilliant minds to cross my path, and I was fortunate to witness this scorching comet's flash across the darkness of the benighted masses before it was extinguished too soon (always too soon and too young), but Andy would always introduce his next great thought or proof (he was a mathematical genius in the truest sense, prodigy of Penrose and Hawking no less) with a flourish and fanfare by exclaiming "Ta-daa!!!" And, with Andy, it was usually a pretty significant reveal.
Patañjali gives us no less with 4.26
tadã viveka-nimnam kaivalya-prãg-bhãram cittam 4.26
Then (ta-daa!!), the inclination towards discretion is the consciousness that gravitates to kaivalya (the singularity of Being). 4.26
As we saw before, we must first divide (viveka) and conquer, and then unite and transcend (kaivalya).
And that shall be our final trick...
To be continued and concluded soon.
The concept of solipsism, or the idea that universe is the mental creation of a single entity (and when it manifests with humans, you get pathological narcissism), comes to mind (pun intended). However, what we saw in the past few sutras, this is a pitfall, much like the siddhis, because ultimately, it is all smoke and infinite mirrors. It is the navel gazing back.
This is not the trajectory we are heading along with Patañjali's concept of Yoga. Instead of beginning with the concept of a singular mind manipulating the universe, we are instead, many minds moving towards the actual singularity of the universe. The gems within Indra's Net are no longer seeking to know which individual gem they are, but rather, the Net itself...But, it is not quite that simple. We still need to further understand the nature, of the (ultimately false) concept that there is a division at all, and this brings us to the final reconciliation of the Seer and the Seen which was introduced at the very beginning of our adventure.
So, turning back to the text, at 4.22, we see the futility of the hall of mirrors for the mind, and that in the end, as with YS 2.1, it is the stilling and cessation of such futile processes that brings us closer to understanding.
citer-apratisamkramãyãs-tad-ãkãra-ãpattau svabuddhi-samvedanam 4.22
Giving us,
There is a moment when the mind is/becomes stilled/non-reflexive, as this manifestation of the mind occurs, the true intellect is identified. 4.22
Here we see that it is the chattering of the mind once again that obscures the real intellect. Psycho-babble and navel gazing won't do the trick, which leads us to what is the final obstacle in 4.23:
drishthri-drishyoparaktam cittam sarvãrtham 4.23
Or,
The mind that is skillful in all matters is tainted by the Seer and the Seen 4.23
Despite being not just a Jack of all trades, even if the mind is a Master of them, it is no less tainted by the Seer and the Seen. In other words, it still is separated from the singularity because there is an object and a subject. There is still the concept of "I" and "thou" and there is division. The paradox of this, however, is then exposed in the next two sutras 4.24-25, leading us to the grand finale with 4.26.
tad-asamkhyeya-vãsanãbhish-citram-api parãrtham samhatya-kãritvãt 4.24
vishesha-darshina ãtma-bhãva-bhãvanã-nivrittih 4.25
Rendering,
Because of its nature of being conjoined (i.e. Seer/Seen), the mind is dependent upon something else though that mind is manifested/variegated by way of countless past impressions. 4.24
For the one who sees this distinction, there is a stilling of the perception of the existence of the Self (ãtman). 4.25
In other words, the mind is multi-faceted gem with countless sides, but, so long as it is stuck in the web of samskãras, or mental impressions and prejudices, it is but a gem reflecting upon its own existence. However, as we see in 4.25, when that mind/gem gets this, then the concept of being a gem disappears. It is the paradox of not being able to name the Tao. Here, for the mind/Self/ãtman to finally understand its nature, it has to see that this distinction is the very cause of not-knowing...To truly KNOW THYSELF then, is too completely and utterly UN-KNOW THYSELF.
And so, we have arrived.
A friend of mine from high school was easily one of the most brilliant minds to cross my path, and I was fortunate to witness this scorching comet's flash across the darkness of the benighted masses before it was extinguished too soon (always too soon and too young), but Andy would always introduce his next great thought or proof (he was a mathematical genius in the truest sense, prodigy of Penrose and Hawking no less) with a flourish and fanfare by exclaiming "Ta-daa!!!" And, with Andy, it was usually a pretty significant reveal.
Patañjali gives us no less with 4.26
tadã viveka-nimnam kaivalya-prãg-bhãram cittam 4.26
Then (ta-daa!!), the inclination towards discretion is the consciousness that gravitates to kaivalya (the singularity of Being). 4.26
As we saw before, we must first divide (viveka) and conquer, and then unite and transcend (kaivalya).
And that shall be our final trick...
To be continued and concluded soon.
Monday, September 10, 2018
Beauty is (Not) in the Eye of the Beholder (Yoga Sutras 4.16-21)
Turning the last corner of the Yoga Sutras on our quest for discerning what actually Kaivalya is, we found that the method of Neti Neti is being used to some extent, namely: to define something, sometimes the best way is to say what it is not, rather than what it is. This seems to be the case at hand.
Before moving on to 4.16, it is prudent to take a step back to 4.15, which seems to be rather linked to it.
In the last post, we saw that 4.15 tells us more or less that due to a multiplicity of minds, there are many paths for the perception of an object, begging the question of perspectivism and/or relativity, meaning: if I see an object as one thing, and you see it as another, are we both right and there are two objects? Or, are we both wrong? Or...both and neither? This likewise leads to the questions of taste and aversion and attraction and so forth. Is an object/person inherently beautiful/repulsive, or is it in the eye of the beholder as the saying goes?
Turning to 4.16 then with this in mind, we see:
na caika-citta-tantram ced-vastu tad-apramãnakam tadã kim syãt 4.16
Giving us,
Nor is it (the being--vastu) dependent upon a singular consciousness (eka-citta), for if the object was not perceived/observed, then what would it be? 4.16
So, 4.16 is interesting for a number of reason, not in the least that it truly asks the reader a question: tadã kim syãt? Then, what would it (the being/existing object) be [if not observed]? This is highly interesting in the subject/object split, because it says that an object does not exist because it is perceived...The more interesting flip-side of that is that what we perceive an object or person to be, does not make it so, and moreover, may not at all be what we think/perceive/believe/observe it to be! You could think something/someone is very beautiful/good/ugly/harmful, but it does not matter if that is not what that person or thing is.
Only by seeing it/him/her as what they truly are, then there is perception. However, as we have seen again and again, the samskãra filters and memory and preconceived ideas inhibit this process, hence the goal of Yoga to remove those filters and de-clutter the noise of the senses so that we can finally begin to see things as they truly are. The hesitation of course is that we might not like what we see...
Which leads us to 4.17:
tad-uparãgãpekshatvãc-cittasya vastu jñãtãjñãtam 4.17
Or,
Due to the influence of expectation, an object is known or not known by a mind/consciousness. 4.17
In other words, what we bring to the table with respect to expectations can cloud our judgment about what is actually going on. If we want something to better than it is, we can fool ourselves, or, we can likewise make something worse than it is, and in both cases, we are not actually seeing the event/person/object for what it is. Okay, that is rather a negative thought, begging the question, "can we ever get past this?"
Yoga and Buddhism say "yes," despite the veneer of Pessimism that is attached to this situation. However, that "yes" does not come easy. We are still not quite there, so we need to look into the situation a bit further, with 4.18-19 then:
sadã jñãtãsh-citta-vrittayas-tat-prabhoh purushasya-aparinãmitvãt 4.18
na tat svãbhãsam drishyatvãt 4.19
Giving us,
The fluctuations/movements/behaviors of the mind are always known because of the non-changing nature of the guiding/governing Purusha (Soul). 4.18
And not because of the ability to see the radiance of them. 4.19
Here I am deviating from many of the translations out there but sticking to the Sanskrit instead, which ultimately yields a rather logical couplet. In other words, we have:
The immutable Soul truly knows the behaviors/fluctuations (vrittayah) of consciousness/the mind (citta), not because it perceives them. 4.18-19
Which bring us back to Do, a female deer....The circle finally begins to close. We began back in February with the first two sutras, the second one being the well-known "definition" of Yoga by Patañjali:
Yogas'citta-vritti-nirodhah....Yoga is the temperance/cessation of the mind's fluctuations/modifications/behaviors and the like...
And now, here in the middle of Book 4, with the end in sight, we are reminded why we came to this party in the first place, to find out what Yoga is and what is its purpose. With 4.18-19, we start to return to the original question after building up the method of the 8-limb path, figuring out what role the senses play, the mind, and the Soul...So, here, we have the notion that it is not because the Soul/Purusha perceives something, it is because it is beyond Time...a-parinãma, because parinãma, or change and evolution or transformation is only a perception of Time.
Because, if we were to experience something across the Space-Time continuum, within the 4th Dimension, so to speak, then we would not see change, but all things at all times...and that, according to 4.19 is the actual nature of the Soul, and it is the Mind, or reason that perceives change and therefore difference, causing us to judge and not truly observe. Again, Patañjali is not proposing some simple solution, this is heavy stuff.
And, then we arrive at 4.20-21:
eka-samaye cobhayãnavadhãranam 4.20
citta-antaradrishye buddhi-buddher-atiprasangah smriti-samkarah 4.21
And, there can be no discernment of both at the same time (mind/Soul) 4.20
In the seeing of the mind within the mind, as a thought of a thought, there would be an endless loop and a confusion of memory. 4.21
These two sutras are a bit murky still, but this the gist of the matter:
Mind/Soul cannot be distinguished as Subject/Object, because the result would be an infinite regress or loop of self-reflection--mirrors reflecting mirrors ad infinitum.
This version of Neti, Neti here then, of saying why something cannot happen, is setting us up for the final dozen or so sutras to lead us to the end, to Kaivalya, and the rejection of a duality between the Seer and the Seen, which will then lead us to the temperance of the vrittayah of the citta...
So close now.
To be continued.
Before moving on to 4.16, it is prudent to take a step back to 4.15, which seems to be rather linked to it.
In the last post, we saw that 4.15 tells us more or less that due to a multiplicity of minds, there are many paths for the perception of an object, begging the question of perspectivism and/or relativity, meaning: if I see an object as one thing, and you see it as another, are we both right and there are two objects? Or, are we both wrong? Or...both and neither? This likewise leads to the questions of taste and aversion and attraction and so forth. Is an object/person inherently beautiful/repulsive, or is it in the eye of the beholder as the saying goes?
Turning to 4.16 then with this in mind, we see:
na caika-citta-tantram ced-vastu tad-apramãnakam tadã kim syãt 4.16
Giving us,
Nor is it (the being--vastu) dependent upon a singular consciousness (eka-citta), for if the object was not perceived/observed, then what would it be? 4.16
So, 4.16 is interesting for a number of reason, not in the least that it truly asks the reader a question: tadã kim syãt? Then, what would it (the being/existing object) be [if not observed]? This is highly interesting in the subject/object split, because it says that an object does not exist because it is perceived...The more interesting flip-side of that is that what we perceive an object or person to be, does not make it so, and moreover, may not at all be what we think/perceive/believe/observe it to be! You could think something/someone is very beautiful/good/ugly/harmful, but it does not matter if that is not what that person or thing is.
Only by seeing it/him/her as what they truly are, then there is perception. However, as we have seen again and again, the samskãra filters and memory and preconceived ideas inhibit this process, hence the goal of Yoga to remove those filters and de-clutter the noise of the senses so that we can finally begin to see things as they truly are. The hesitation of course is that we might not like what we see...
Which leads us to 4.17:
tad-uparãgãpekshatvãc-cittasya vastu jñãtãjñãtam 4.17
Or,
Due to the influence of expectation, an object is known or not known by a mind/consciousness. 4.17
In other words, what we bring to the table with respect to expectations can cloud our judgment about what is actually going on. If we want something to better than it is, we can fool ourselves, or, we can likewise make something worse than it is, and in both cases, we are not actually seeing the event/person/object for what it is. Okay, that is rather a negative thought, begging the question, "can we ever get past this?"
Yoga and Buddhism say "yes," despite the veneer of Pessimism that is attached to this situation. However, that "yes" does not come easy. We are still not quite there, so we need to look into the situation a bit further, with 4.18-19 then:
sadã jñãtãsh-citta-vrittayas-tat-prabhoh purushasya-aparinãmitvãt 4.18
na tat svãbhãsam drishyatvãt 4.19
Giving us,
The fluctuations/movements/behaviors of the mind are always known because of the non-changing nature of the guiding/governing Purusha (Soul). 4.18
And not because of the ability to see the radiance of them. 4.19
Here I am deviating from many of the translations out there but sticking to the Sanskrit instead, which ultimately yields a rather logical couplet. In other words, we have:
The immutable Soul truly knows the behaviors/fluctuations (vrittayah) of consciousness/the mind (citta), not because it perceives them. 4.18-19
Which bring us back to Do, a female deer....The circle finally begins to close. We began back in February with the first two sutras, the second one being the well-known "definition" of Yoga by Patañjali:
Yogas'citta-vritti-nirodhah....Yoga is the temperance/cessation of the mind's fluctuations/modifications/behaviors and the like...
And now, here in the middle of Book 4, with the end in sight, we are reminded why we came to this party in the first place, to find out what Yoga is and what is its purpose. With 4.18-19, we start to return to the original question after building up the method of the 8-limb path, figuring out what role the senses play, the mind, and the Soul...So, here, we have the notion that it is not because the Soul/Purusha perceives something, it is because it is beyond Time...a-parinãma, because parinãma, or change and evolution or transformation is only a perception of Time.
Because, if we were to experience something across the Space-Time continuum, within the 4th Dimension, so to speak, then we would not see change, but all things at all times...and that, according to 4.19 is the actual nature of the Soul, and it is the Mind, or reason that perceives change and therefore difference, causing us to judge and not truly observe. Again, Patañjali is not proposing some simple solution, this is heavy stuff.
And, then we arrive at 4.20-21:
eka-samaye cobhayãnavadhãranam 4.20
citta-antaradrishye buddhi-buddher-atiprasangah smriti-samkarah 4.21
And, there can be no discernment of both at the same time (mind/Soul) 4.20
In the seeing of the mind within the mind, as a thought of a thought, there would be an endless loop and a confusion of memory. 4.21
These two sutras are a bit murky still, but this the gist of the matter:
Mind/Soul cannot be distinguished as Subject/Object, because the result would be an infinite regress or loop of self-reflection--mirrors reflecting mirrors ad infinitum.
This version of Neti, Neti here then, of saying why something cannot happen, is setting us up for the final dozen or so sutras to lead us to the end, to Kaivalya, and the rejection of a duality between the Seer and the Seen, which will then lead us to the temperance of the vrittayah of the citta...
So close now.
To be continued.
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Time Out, Out of Time (Yoga Sutras 4.13-15)
Time. Who has the Time? Time for reading posts about the Yoga Sutras, for example...
We're always running out of Time, or Time is short, never enough Time...
Time has been a great fascination for me, well, for a long Time. Yet, not in the way that I am obsessed with punctuality or expensive time pieces, or that I am a clock watcher (far from it actually), but rather what I am interested in is what we are looking at today in these three sutras: The relationship between the Perception of Time and the Mind.
There is a well-worn Zen koan (illogical word puzzles to confound "rational" mind; think one hand clapping) that tells the situation of two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One asserts that the flag is moving, the other says that it is the wind that is moving. A third, much wiser of course, master overhears and tells them that they are both wrong. Not the wind, not the flag,;but the Mind is moving...
Such is the case with most things in life. Two sides arguing, both are usually in the wrong to some extent, if not fully, hence the argument.
The Mind Moves. Can it be so? What really is the passage of Time other than the perception of its passage by the mind? If we do not perceive the change, does the change happen? It's the old chestnut of the tree falling in the forest...did it make a sound? How can we ever know. For, like Schrödinger's unfortunate cat, as soon as we perceive something, we create its reality from a possibility. We decided the fate of the cat in the box as well as the flag in the wind, with our Minds.
Turning then, our minds, to the Yoga Sutras again, we have arrived at 4.13-14. Three simple, concise sutras, which read almost like a footnote. However, footnotes often contain the keys to the puzzle, so let's see what we can see here:
te vyakta-sUksmã gunãtmãnah 4.13
parinãmaikatvãt-vastu-tattvam 4.14
vastu-sãmye citta-bhedãt-tayor-vibhaktah panthãh 4.15
Giving us,
The constitution of the gunas are either prominent or subtle. 4.13
Because of the singular nature of evolution/transformation (parinãma), the essential state of an object (vastu) persists. 4.14 (we'll clean this up shortly)
Because of the difference of minds (citta) in the singularity of an object (vastu), there are divided paths for them. 4.15 (again, clean-up is coming)
Before we clean this up a bit, it is best to rehearse the three gunas and what they are because, as with the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras primary goal is to overcome the dominance of the gunas...so, what are they?
The three gunas (qualities, characteristics, attributes) are:
Sattva--radiance, intelligence, clarity, harmony
Tamah--darkness, ignorance, obscurity, discord
Rajah--dynamism, passion, turbulence, chaos, change
Sattva is arguably the "best" guna to manifest, but, the entire system of the gunas is based upon the fact that everything is a mixture of the three, yet, at any given time, one may be dominant, and it is in our best interest to cultivate the sattva; though, at all times? Does rationality always seem like the best answer over passion and change?
Ultimately, both the Gita and the Sutras will say, like the Zen master above, mu, or neither (and both). We shall have to wait just a bit longer to go into more detail on that, but for now, we are in the realm of the gunas, and everything that we perceive in the Universe is a mixture of them.
Returning then to the 3 sutras, we see:
These three gunas then can either be manifested boldly or subtly (4.13). In other words, sometimes we may readily perceive which guna is dominant and in what proportion, other times, not so apparent.
However, it is the inherent combination of the three gunas in an object that gives it its "existence" in the physical world (4.14). We call something a name because we recognize it through the singular evolution of Time (or, rather, our perception of that transformation (parinãma)). My cat sitting in front of me is "Lucky" because he was "Lucky" yesterday and the day before, etc. If suddenly, he was "another" cat, then he would no longer be "Lucky". But, what makes him "Lucky"? At this physical level, that of Prakriti, or Nature, it is persistent constitution of gunas.
The constitution of the gunas create the quiddity of the thing, or cat, itself...or, what makes you you.
However, it's not that simple...because, what makes you you to you is different than what makes you you to me, or to your mom or dad or your best friend...
Which leads us to 4.15 again, and the question of the flag in the wind. 4.15 says that there is a singularity of the object/Cat (and its mixture of gunas), however, there are differences in minds perceiving that object/Cat, which leads to many paths, or perceptions, and ultimately perceived realities.
One of my cats was named "Babette", for example, before we adopted her. My daughter and I did not keep that name, yet, the cat remained the same, or did she? Does she become a new cat with a new name and new humans?
Comparing III.55...we have the formula of divide and conquering; uniting and transcending again. In the mind (citta) we perceive and we divide things into categories and name them. But, that stagnates them in time, freezing them in a prison of a definition as to what they "are". In the Mind's Eye, however, which is beyond reason and rational thinking, and more in the realm of intuition, imagination and proper intelligence (that is, not book learning, but "seeing" something or someone for what it or he/she is, not what we want it/them to be...), then we go beyond the moment in Time, we transcend the moment...and we then begin to finally "see the light"...
To be continued...
We're always running out of Time, or Time is short, never enough Time...
Time has been a great fascination for me, well, for a long Time. Yet, not in the way that I am obsessed with punctuality or expensive time pieces, or that I am a clock watcher (far from it actually), but rather what I am interested in is what we are looking at today in these three sutras: The relationship between the Perception of Time and the Mind.
There is a well-worn Zen koan (illogical word puzzles to confound "rational" mind; think one hand clapping) that tells the situation of two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One asserts that the flag is moving, the other says that it is the wind that is moving. A third, much wiser of course, master overhears and tells them that they are both wrong. Not the wind, not the flag,;but the Mind is moving...
Such is the case with most things in life. Two sides arguing, both are usually in the wrong to some extent, if not fully, hence the argument.
The Mind Moves. Can it be so? What really is the passage of Time other than the perception of its passage by the mind? If we do not perceive the change, does the change happen? It's the old chestnut of the tree falling in the forest...did it make a sound? How can we ever know. For, like Schrödinger's unfortunate cat, as soon as we perceive something, we create its reality from a possibility. We decided the fate of the cat in the box as well as the flag in the wind, with our Minds.
Turning then, our minds, to the Yoga Sutras again, we have arrived at 4.13-14. Three simple, concise sutras, which read almost like a footnote. However, footnotes often contain the keys to the puzzle, so let's see what we can see here:
te vyakta-sUksmã gunãtmãnah 4.13
parinãmaikatvãt-vastu-tattvam 4.14
vastu-sãmye citta-bhedãt-tayor-vibhaktah panthãh 4.15
Giving us,
The constitution of the gunas are either prominent or subtle. 4.13
Because of the singular nature of evolution/transformation (parinãma), the essential state of an object (vastu) persists. 4.14 (we'll clean this up shortly)
Because of the difference of minds (citta) in the singularity of an object (vastu), there are divided paths for them. 4.15 (again, clean-up is coming)
Before we clean this up a bit, it is best to rehearse the three gunas and what they are because, as with the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras primary goal is to overcome the dominance of the gunas...so, what are they?
The three gunas (qualities, characteristics, attributes) are:
Sattva--radiance, intelligence, clarity, harmony
Tamah--darkness, ignorance, obscurity, discord
Rajah--dynamism, passion, turbulence, chaos, change
Sattva is arguably the "best" guna to manifest, but, the entire system of the gunas is based upon the fact that everything is a mixture of the three, yet, at any given time, one may be dominant, and it is in our best interest to cultivate the sattva; though, at all times? Does rationality always seem like the best answer over passion and change?
Ultimately, both the Gita and the Sutras will say, like the Zen master above, mu, or neither (and both). We shall have to wait just a bit longer to go into more detail on that, but for now, we are in the realm of the gunas, and everything that we perceive in the Universe is a mixture of them.
Returning then to the 3 sutras, we see:
These three gunas then can either be manifested boldly or subtly (4.13). In other words, sometimes we may readily perceive which guna is dominant and in what proportion, other times, not so apparent.
However, it is the inherent combination of the three gunas in an object that gives it its "existence" in the physical world (4.14). We call something a name because we recognize it through the singular evolution of Time (or, rather, our perception of that transformation (parinãma)). My cat sitting in front of me is "Lucky" because he was "Lucky" yesterday and the day before, etc. If suddenly, he was "another" cat, then he would no longer be "Lucky". But, what makes him "Lucky"? At this physical level, that of Prakriti, or Nature, it is persistent constitution of gunas.
The constitution of the gunas create the quiddity of the thing, or cat, itself...or, what makes you you.
However, it's not that simple...because, what makes you you to you is different than what makes you you to me, or to your mom or dad or your best friend...
Which leads us to 4.15 again, and the question of the flag in the wind. 4.15 says that there is a singularity of the object/Cat (and its mixture of gunas), however, there are differences in minds perceiving that object/Cat, which leads to many paths, or perceptions, and ultimately perceived realities.
One of my cats was named "Babette", for example, before we adopted her. My daughter and I did not keep that name, yet, the cat remained the same, or did she? Does she become a new cat with a new name and new humans?
Comparing III.55...we have the formula of divide and conquering; uniting and transcending again. In the mind (citta) we perceive and we divide things into categories and name them. But, that stagnates them in time, freezing them in a prison of a definition as to what they "are". In the Mind's Eye, however, which is beyond reason and rational thinking, and more in the realm of intuition, imagination and proper intelligence (that is, not book learning, but "seeing" something or someone for what it or he/she is, not what we want it/them to be...), then we go beyond the moment in Time, we transcend the moment...and we then begin to finally "see the light"...
To be continued...
Monday, September 3, 2018
The Neti-Neti Plot Turns (Yoga Sutras 4.7-12)
As we saw last time, Book 4 is starting to wrap things up, but there are still some loose ends that need tying before we get the end...or, the beginning, depending upon your perspective.
Within the Indian philosophical tradition, there is an interesting approach to determining what something is, and that is by saying what it is not. The phrase "Neti Neti" is the paradigm of this tactic, and it is something that is being applied in this next section of the Kaivalyam chapter.
Neti, Neti is a contraction of Na iti, Na iti, which means "Neither this, nor that." In other words, along with the traditions of Zen and Taoism (Daoism) and sometimes in Socratic irony, to name something is to misunderstand it. The paradox is that if you name it, you don't understand it, and if you understand it, you cannot name it.
Neti, Neti then, is similar, but different. What many ancient Indian thinkers would do then is to list attributes or arguments about what something is not, or give an contrasting example of something inferior to highlight the superiority of the subject at hand.
Turning then to YS 4.7, we see this in action:
karma-ashukla-akrishnam yoginas-trividham-itareshãm 4.7
Giving us,
Karma is not-white and not-black for the Yogi, for others, it is three-fold. 4.7
In other words, for the "true" Yogi/ni, karma is no longer a loaded concept, but rather, it goes back to the proper and true meaning of karma, which is action, neither good, nor bad. White karma is action with good intention or expectations of doing good, while black (krishna, which can also be dark indigo) is with less-than-savory intentions and ultimately effects harm, or himsã to oneself or others. The third type then would be mixed, or "grey" karma, which might mean an action that is well-intended but ultimately harms, or vice versa, something bad that ultimately has positive results. For the Yogi/ni, however, it is not about intention, nor expectation of the results.
With the discretion built up from long-term viveka through diligent practice, abhyãsa, the Yogi will simply act in a proper manner that does no harm, but more importantly, he or she will not care about the results, nor seek any merit for them, nor shun de-merit if they are injurious. It is pure responsibility without attachment for one's actions and their results. Altruism is a tricky thing, because I personally believe that even altruism (doing good for others) usually has at least a trace of Ego and selfishness attached. 4.7 suggest that the Yogi/ni can transcend even that...
Moving along to 4.8, we get a corollary:
tatas-tad-vipãka-anugunãnãm-eva-abhivyaktir-vãsanãnãnm 4.8
Or,
From this, the fruition/results of (these types of) karma are indeed accordingly manifested being derived from memory. 4.8
In other words,
The results of our actions yield mental impressions (samskãra/vãsanã), which means that ultimately we seek results based upon habits and experience. The more one become attached to such results, the more "colored" one's actions become. Through Yoga, however, we exercise vairagyam, or detachment from these habits, and again, simply act, not because it will make us feel better about ourselves or harm our enemies, but because it is proper action (karma), or at times non-action (a-karma), befitting the situation.
So, with these 2 sutras, we see what the karma of the Yogi/ni is not...hence the Neti, Neti of it.
The following 2 sutras are another example of possibly being a single sutra, or at the very least, a couplet as follows:
jãti-desha-kãla-vyavahitãnãm-apyãnantaryam smriti-samskãrayor-ekarupatvãt 4.9
tãsãm-anãditvam ca-ãshisho nityatvãt 4.10
Bringing us,
Because of the singular, true nature of memory and samskãra, there is no interruption between, even if there are intervals/separations of lineage, place or time. 4.9
And, because of the eternal nature of the Will to be, they are without beginning. 4.10
These two sutras, then, take us into a bit more detail of the mental impressions that are inextricably linked with memory, despite breaks in time, place and even births, and they are eternally present where there is a Will to Be. What this means is that our habits and expectations are seriously hard-wired, so we need to completely re-wire the system if we are to break free.
What is truly amazing about these two sutras, however, is that they pre-date modern neurological research into this very phenomena under the rubric of neuroplasticity, which basically means, we can willfully change our brains, literally! This is the exact path that we have taken with Yoga, to literally, change our minds...
The next 2 sutras can likewise be taken together, though not as intimately linked, yet:
hetu-phalãshrayãlambanaih samgrihItatvãd-eshãm-abhãve tad-abhãvah 4.11
and
atItãnãgatam svarupato'astyadhva-bhedãd-dharmãnãm 4.12
Bringing us to:
Due to the constitutional nature of being supported by the refuge of cause and effect, when these are absent, then there is absence of samskãra 4.11
The past and the not-yet-manifest (future) exist in their true form because of the nature of being different/discrete of inherent properties/characteristics. 4.12
Dissecting this a bit more, this means:
Our mental categories/impressions, that are bound to our memory are supported by cause and effect, and when these are gone, so to do the samskãras dissipate, and our perception of time is merely contingent upon the perception of there being differences, based upon our mental constructs, bound to memory.
In other words, as is über-trendy now to say, When you truly live in the NOW, then prejudices fall away, and we can see without clouded mental filters...
What a wonderful world it would be...
To be continued.
Within the Indian philosophical tradition, there is an interesting approach to determining what something is, and that is by saying what it is not. The phrase "Neti Neti" is the paradigm of this tactic, and it is something that is being applied in this next section of the Kaivalyam chapter.
Neti, Neti is a contraction of Na iti, Na iti, which means "Neither this, nor that." In other words, along with the traditions of Zen and Taoism (Daoism) and sometimes in Socratic irony, to name something is to misunderstand it. The paradox is that if you name it, you don't understand it, and if you understand it, you cannot name it.
Neti, Neti then, is similar, but different. What many ancient Indian thinkers would do then is to list attributes or arguments about what something is not, or give an contrasting example of something inferior to highlight the superiority of the subject at hand.
Turning then to YS 4.7, we see this in action:
karma-ashukla-akrishnam yoginas-trividham-itareshãm 4.7
Giving us,
Karma is not-white and not-black for the Yogi, for others, it is three-fold. 4.7
In other words, for the "true" Yogi/ni, karma is no longer a loaded concept, but rather, it goes back to the proper and true meaning of karma, which is action, neither good, nor bad. White karma is action with good intention or expectations of doing good, while black (krishna, which can also be dark indigo) is with less-than-savory intentions and ultimately effects harm, or himsã to oneself or others. The third type then would be mixed, or "grey" karma, which might mean an action that is well-intended but ultimately harms, or vice versa, something bad that ultimately has positive results. For the Yogi/ni, however, it is not about intention, nor expectation of the results.
With the discretion built up from long-term viveka through diligent practice, abhyãsa, the Yogi will simply act in a proper manner that does no harm, but more importantly, he or she will not care about the results, nor seek any merit for them, nor shun de-merit if they are injurious. It is pure responsibility without attachment for one's actions and their results. Altruism is a tricky thing, because I personally believe that even altruism (doing good for others) usually has at least a trace of Ego and selfishness attached. 4.7 suggest that the Yogi/ni can transcend even that...
Moving along to 4.8, we get a corollary:
tatas-tad-vipãka-anugunãnãm-eva-abhivyaktir-vãsanãnãnm 4.8
Or,
From this, the fruition/results of (these types of) karma are indeed accordingly manifested being derived from memory. 4.8
In other words,
The results of our actions yield mental impressions (samskãra/vãsanã), which means that ultimately we seek results based upon habits and experience. The more one become attached to such results, the more "colored" one's actions become. Through Yoga, however, we exercise vairagyam, or detachment from these habits, and again, simply act, not because it will make us feel better about ourselves or harm our enemies, but because it is proper action (karma), or at times non-action (a-karma), befitting the situation.
So, with these 2 sutras, we see what the karma of the Yogi/ni is not...hence the Neti, Neti of it.
The following 2 sutras are another example of possibly being a single sutra, or at the very least, a couplet as follows:
jãti-desha-kãla-vyavahitãnãm-apyãnantaryam smriti-samskãrayor-ekarupatvãt 4.9
tãsãm-anãditvam ca-ãshisho nityatvãt 4.10
Bringing us,
Because of the singular, true nature of memory and samskãra, there is no interruption between, even if there are intervals/separations of lineage, place or time. 4.9
And, because of the eternal nature of the Will to be, they are without beginning. 4.10
These two sutras, then, take us into a bit more detail of the mental impressions that are inextricably linked with memory, despite breaks in time, place and even births, and they are eternally present where there is a Will to Be. What this means is that our habits and expectations are seriously hard-wired, so we need to completely re-wire the system if we are to break free.
What is truly amazing about these two sutras, however, is that they pre-date modern neurological research into this very phenomena under the rubric of neuroplasticity, which basically means, we can willfully change our brains, literally! This is the exact path that we have taken with Yoga, to literally, change our minds...
The next 2 sutras can likewise be taken together, though not as intimately linked, yet:
hetu-phalãshrayãlambanaih samgrihItatvãd-eshãm-abhãve tad-abhãvah 4.11
and
atItãnãgatam svarupato'astyadhva-bhedãd-dharmãnãm 4.12
Bringing us to:
Due to the constitutional nature of being supported by the refuge of cause and effect, when these are absent, then there is absence of samskãra 4.11
The past and the not-yet-manifest (future) exist in their true form because of the nature of being different/discrete of inherent properties/characteristics. 4.12
Dissecting this a bit more, this means:
Our mental categories/impressions, that are bound to our memory are supported by cause and effect, and when these are gone, so to do the samskãras dissipate, and our perception of time is merely contingent upon the perception of there being differences, based upon our mental constructs, bound to memory.
In other words, as is über-trendy now to say, When you truly live in the NOW, then prejudices fall away, and we can see without clouded mental filters...
What a wonderful world it would be...
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)