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.
No comments:
Post a Comment