Want Samãdhi to Love...Translation of Book 1 of Patañjali's Yoga Sutras w/commentary

How Soon is Now?  (YS 1.1)

The Anatomy of a Sutra (YS 1.2)

The Eyes Have It (YS 1.3-4)

Splinters in the Mind's "I" (YS 1.5-11)

The Bee in the Rose (YS 1.12-16)

Pr(act)ice Makes Perfect? (YS 1.12-16, redux)

Knowing our ãsmita from our Elbows (YS 1.17-22)

OMG: OM, My God! (YS 1.23-29)

Detours of the Mind's Eye (YS 1.30-32)

Methods to [End] the Madness (YS 1.33-39)

Six Not-So-Easy Pieces (YS 1.40-1.45)

To Seed or Not to Seed (YS 1.46-51)

iti Patañjali-viracite yogasutre prathamah samãdhi-pãdah

Thus ends the first chapter of Patañjali's Yoga Sutras on Samãdhi

OMG: OM, My God! (YS 1.23-29)

Why do we chant OM/AUM in a Yoga class in the 21st century in Belgium, or the United States, or chose your location...?  Why does Don Draper close Mad Men chanting OM in the finale? How did this become such an integral and integrated part of the Yoga world, milieu and sorry to be jaded, but business? I dare you to find a tattoo artist in a major urban area who has not at least been asked to tattoo an "OM" at some point on some body part. It is like Leopold Bloom in James Joyce's Ulysses wondering if you can cross Dublin without passing a pub...

So, where does this ubiquitous syllable come from?

OM/AUM (read more on the difference between OM/AUM here) by itself has long been considered the sacred syllable because when intoned properly according to the Vedas and Upanishads, it begins with the deepest level of sound, the "A" in the base of the diaphragm and emanates up through the thoracic cavity, past the tongue with "U" and culminates in the nasal humming with "M", transcending into silence afterwards. It is traditionally used to initiate and to conclude chants, hymns and various texts throughout the history of Indian thought, religion and philosophy. It finishes the familiar recitation of "Shantih" or "Peace" with "Shanti, Shanti, Shanti-hi" (that final "i-hi" is grammatical, btw), which is a common form of saying "Amen" in Sanskrit.

But, specifically, with Yoga, in the Sutras 1.23-29, we see a much more detailed reason, one that may attract or repel people when you know more about it. So, spoiler alert! Do you want to go down this rabbit hole with me?

If so, let's go.

After discussing the two-fold role of Abhyãsa and Vairãgyam, and with my argument that these were still the subject of the previous 6 sutras, then 1.23 makes a lot of sense.

Let's look:

Ishvarapranidhãnãdvã 1.23

Broken down, it is: Ishvara-, pranidhanãd and vã.

Three simple words, but as we have seen, three words can mean a lot in Sutras. And, not to make it dull, but grammar has to be respected here. Let's give it its due respect.

Ishvara-pranidhanãd is a compound, but the ending/suffix/case is what is interesting. It is an ablative (which means: because of, due to, or from) with the -ãd  (NB: originally -ãt, but changes when it comes before the following "v") form. Innocuous enough on its own, except for the two-letter conjunction that follows, namely vã, which means "or". Where there is an "or" there has to be an implied "either" somewhere, and that where is in Sutra 1.17, with the word anugamãt in conjunction with samprajñãtah. Commentaries and translations alike for centuries seem to ignore this, almost blindly and take samprajñãtah to be the subject (as Samãdhi) rather than qualifying anugamãt. What that means is that we can read it as "it (param vairãgyam) is recognized/known BECAUSE of being accompanied by ..." and then move to 1.23, the next ablative to read "Or, BECAUSE of a devotion to Ishvara". Otherwise, 1.23 seems to come out of nowhere. Again, if it makes sense in the original, it has to make sense in the translation.

So, what to do with Ishvara? This is where some people stop reading the Sutras because the most common translation for Ishvara is...God. And, that is a shame. God invokes and evokes the paternal, old Man, deity upstairs who has all sorts of hang-ups about morality and ethics and Sin and so forth. Ishvara means none of these such things. The Yoga Sutras are not about religion, nor morality, nor God...they are about life and how to live it, and more importantly how to deal with suffering, or Duhkham.

Ishvara is a rare word, and seems somewhat idiosyncratic for Patañjali to be fair. But, what does it really mean? More or less, the best translation is "the Higher Power of the Universe". This can be whatever that may be...Brahma, Shiva, Krishna, Shakti, Kali, the Mother, the Supreme Atman, the OverSoul...and so forth. It is not strictly an anthropomorphic concept. It is the Ultimate Power of the Cosmos. That is something I can get into, how about you?

So, if you are still with me, let's continue and see how this brings us back to OM, Sweet OM...

Taking the next 3 Sutras together, we get one step closer to OM.

Klesha-karma-vipãka-ãshayair-aparãmrishthah purusha-visheshah  1.24
Tatra niratishãyam sarvaja-bijam    1. 25
Sa esha purveshãm-api gurus kãlena-anavacchedãt 1.26

Or,

Ishvara is a distinguished Soul/entity untouched/unsullied by the storehouses of the consequences of actions (and) obstacles (of Yoga).  1.24
Within Ishvara, the omniscient seed is beyond measure. 1.25
Because of not being limited by Time, Ishvara is also the Guru of the ancients 1.26

Meaning, in short,

Ishvara is the pure, Supreme Power of the Cosmos, beyond reproach by actions and obstacles, omnipotent and transcending Time, being the Teacher for all the ages.

We find a comparison of this in the Bhagavad Gita, when Arjuna asks Krishna how he could be the teacher of Yoga for the Ancients such as Vivasvat (BG 4.1-4) if they came before Krishna. Krishna, being considerate of Arjuna's inability to comprehend that Krishna is not a mere human charioteer, but is in fact the entire Cosmos, as is Ishvara, replies that he remembers all of his births, and furthermore:

ajo'pi sannavyayãtmã bhutãnãmishvaro'pi san
prakritim svãmadhishthãya sambhavamyãtmamãyayã  (BG 4.6)

Or,

Although I am without birth, the unchangeable Self and being Lord/Supreme Power (Ishvara) of all beings, I control my own Nature, existing through the power of Myself.

As Ishvara then, Krishna too is beyond Time and ultimately the Teacher/Guru of the Ancients of all times.

Again, the term Ishvara is rather rare and is somewhat vague as it does not refer to any specific deity such as Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu and so forth, and in both cases here, it is related to the Ultimate Yoga Guru who transcends Time and literally exists only because of its own Will to Be(com)-ing.

Back to the Sutras then, we introduce Ishvara's relationship to OM.

tasya vãcakah pranavah   1.27
taj-japas-tad-artha-bhãvanam   1.28
tatah pratyak-cetana-adhigamo' py-antarãyãbhavãshcha  1.29

Giving us:

And, the distinguishing sound of Ishvara is OM (pranavah). 1.27
Repetitive chanting of OM is the realization of its goal.   1.28
From doing this, self-conscious contemplation is achieved, as well as the absence of obstacles (for Yoga).  1.29

In short,

Repetitiously chanting OM/AUM, the sacred syllable of Ishvara, achieving its goal of initiating profound self-contemplation and removes obstacles for Yoga. 

And, there you have it!

As Yoga became more "mainstream" for lack of a better word, the OM was carried along with the package. Previously, however, chanting OM was a profound tuning into the Self or Soul by uniting with Ishvara, the Higher Power of the Universe, in order to remove the obstacles (which we discover in the next Sutra, 1.30) in order to engage in intense meditation, ultimately becoming Samãdhi as the eighth limb of Yoga according to Patañjali.

OM was the catalyst, or the seed crystal, for Samãdhi.

To chant OM then was to demarcate one's Self from separation from the Higher Power to one with reverence and union with Ishvara. It was a process of bringing the individual together with the collective consciousness.

No short order for such a seemingly simple syllable.

A beautiful and sonorous OM (or 3) at the end of a good Yoga class can really bring the room together (nod to the Cohen Brothers...). A lethargic, flat OM can leave one feeling a bit deflated. If you chose to use OM within a Yoga class, either as a teacher or a practitioner, it might be worth the moment's pause to consider the profundity of its origins, rather than just going through the motions, and again, choosing to use it or not, do so with a modicum of awareness.

Then, to come full circle, the "vã" from 1.23 means that Param Vairãgyam is accomplished either by the stages of diligent practice and a refined disinterest of desires, OR by devotion to the Higher Power by chanting OM, wrapping up 1.17-29 quite nicely, both grammatically and in meaning.

Just a thought.

OM...

In The End Is the Word

I have expressed my discontent with the use and abuse of Karma  elsewhere, but it bears repeating, for I cannot “pick up” an on-line publication or hear a snippet of a conversation without nearly at least once hearing someone say something to the effect of “it was my bad karma that I got stuck in traffic” or “Tim Tebow must have good karma when he prays before a game” or the like, when speaking of why something did or did not happen. To re-iterate, then, karma, from the root Kr, simply means, “the thing done,” nothing more, nothing less. There is no value, no judgment, no good, no bad, no Quality to it. It simply means--an action done.

Karma causes an effect. Karma, the action is the cause. The result, whether it is judged later as good or bad, is independent of the karma, or action, with regards to Quality. It is the result of the action that ultimately bears the burden of Quality.

The Seventh Chapter of the Chãndogya Upanishad is a brilliant catechism of cause and effort. It simultaneously pre-dates the Buddhist concept of the eight-fold Middle Way with the precursor of the concept of “right speech,” while also being the virtual inversion, like a yoga headstand of St. John’s gospel concept of the logos, or the Word made Flesh. Logos from the Greek can mean simply word, but it also extends to the entire gamut of rational discourse, study, or rhetorical utterances. It is a very powerful word in itself.

However, for John, the Word comes first, it is the Creative Force, it is God. In the Chãndogya, the words come last, they are the least powerful in a long chain of karmic events, or actions, leading back to the source of all thought and expression.

Nãrada, an aspirant of learning, approaches (the verb upa-ni-shad means to approach, like a student to a teacher) Sanatkumãra, an esteemed guru, or teacher and wishes to learn what he knows. Sanatkumãra tells Nãrada to tell him what he knows, and Sanatkumãra will in turn un-learn him of what he has learned. Nãrada lists all of the studies and texts that he has learned, in this case, memorized, beginning with the Vedas down to texts on the natural history of serpents.

To this long list of apparent erudition, Sanatkumãra says that these are all merely “namani” or words, the etymology in fact of the Greek -nym, from which we get anto-nyms and syno-nyms and the like, not the mention the more transparent inheritance into our own English as the Names.

Sanatkumãra tells his questioning friend that there is nothing behind these mere words, or names, and that the truth lies much further back, down the chain of events of cause and effect.

The ensuing dialectic, predating even the Socratic Method by centuries and the Catholic Catechism by that many more centuries is quite simple and repetitive, almost like childish banter in its simplicity, but the consequences are quite profound, calling into question our notions of the childhood mantra of “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Nothing could be further from the Truth for Sanatkumãra as we see, tracing back the origin of the word to its source.

Nãrada asks at each stage, “asti bhagavo nãmno bhuya iti nãmno vãvã bhuo’sti,” both a question and a plaintive query, “O venerable one, is there something greater than Name? Surely there is something greater than Name?!?” At each stage then, consequently, the teacher gives something that is bhuya, or greater, than the thing before, beginning with Name/Word.

From Name/word, he goes to Speech to Mind to Will to Intelligence to Meditation to Understanding to Strength (vitality to think) to Sustenance (to provide the vitality) to Water (to cause the food) to Fire to Space to Memory to Hope to the Vital Force, or Prãna, which is the source of everything. Prãna can be thought of as being kin to the pneuma of Greek, or the breath, the spirit or Life. Tracing back then, words or names are the final product of the initiation of the Vital Essence of Be-ing, the sacred breath of the Universe, pronounced by the udghita, by chanting the sacred syllable OM, or A-U-M. Though it is a chain of cause and effect, it is one and the same as you cannot have the cause without the effect, the two are not distinct, but part of the greater whole.

However, what is then interesting from this karmic chain is what Nãrada then learns is the consequence of incorrect speech, or harmful words. For, because speech and consequently words are the result of the Vital Force, expressed by the Will and through the Mind, to speak ill of one is as good as murder. Greater, or rather worse, is to speak ill of one than even to desecrate their ashes at the funeral pyre, because those are mere, mortal remains.

To speak improperly is simply spiritual murder. It does not attack the bones, like the sticks and stones, but rather the very Soul of another, the core of that person’s Vital Life Force. Speaking ill, then, of one, is not to bring on so-called “bad karma” to one’s Self, it is a much greater illness, it implicates one of pre-meditated murder.

Speak well, then, is the message from Sanatkumãra, and indeed, if you don’t have something kind to say, think about the real consequences, not the selfishness of whether you will get stuck in a traffic jam later in the day, or whether your favorite team will lose the game, but rather, what have you in fact done to that person’s Soul?

Such is the nature of Karma...and as such, we might think to speak unto others as you would have them speak to you.

Words can hurt. The good news is, they can heal too.