Showing posts with label kaivalya. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kaivalya. Show all posts
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.
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.
Friday, August 31, 2018
Kaivalyam...And, Then There was ONE (Yoga Sutras 4.1-6)
And so, we move ever closer to the end.
Book IV will bring us challenges to be sure. The nominal title given to this Book is Kaivalya, which as we have seen means: to be utterly alone; a singularity. However, this singularity is no less than the pinnacle of self-awareness, the goal of Yoga, which is why we began this journey. Book IV is no longer a road map as we have seen in Book II with the introduction of the 8 Limbs of Yoga. It is not a cautionary tale of what could go wrong if we let our Ego be overcome by the powers of Siddhi as in Book III. And, though it will hearken back to the original explanation of the quest for Samãdhi in Book I, where we began, it shall move even further beyond...
One of the oft-quoted definitions of Yoga is from the Bhagavad Gita in 2.50 with the phrase: yogah karmasu kaushalam, or Yoga is skill in actions. A common crossover, and related, phrase that we also see in Zen is upaya kaushalya, or skillful/expedient means. Up to this point, we have been encountering a mixture of these two concepts on the path of Yoga, as being a sort of skillful means to navigate through actions. Now, however, it is time to see where that has led us with respect to avidyã, or ignorance, and the relationship to duhkham, or suffering, which from YS 2.16, we saw was the purpose of Yoga: to avoid suffering that has not yet manifested/happened.
In other words, what have we learned?
One of the words that has been coming up quite often and its importance being made more each time is the concept of parinãma, or change/evolution/transformation.
Why is this so important to our Yoga path? Simply put, without change, without an evolution of thinking from experience or without a transformation from what we were when we began, then nothing has happened. Or worse, we have been given vidyã, and yet we choose avidyã. In Book VI of Plato's Republic, there is the story that has generally become known as "The Allegory of the Cave."
It tells the story of our condition as being shackled to benches in a cave, with our backs to the opening of the cave. By way of the light source behind us, shadows of figures are cast upon the wall in front of us, with everyone believing, "this is reality." However, one prisoner escapes, crawls out of the cave and "sees the true Light" and is literally blinded for a while. When his sight returns, he is in awe of the Beauty he now see for the first time. He goes back to share this wonderful gift to his fellow prisoners of the cave. They promptly think him mad, and are annoyed that he disturbs their mindless and false entertainment of the shadows dancing on the wall. So, they do what we always do to those who wish to share vidyã to our avidyã. They kill him.
The Yoga Sutras, likewise, are offering a key to the shackles. And yet, in the name of "Yoga" so many people shun the hard work, the abhyãsa in favor of bumper-stickers turn it into a multi-billion dollar network, all the while apparently being oh-so appalled at those who dare to make money off of Yoga as it is not "real Yoga." And, yet, what is the "real" Yoga that they speak of? I wonder.
But, all in good time.
We begin with Book IV as we begin our end. It begins, however, a bit bumpy with some curiosities before we get back on track so to speak.
4.1 concludes the discussion of the Siddhis gained by various samyamas from Book III with a list of possible ways to obtain them:
janmaushadhi-mantra-tapah-samãdhijãh siddhayah 4.1
Or,
Siddhis are born from birth, herbal tonics, acts of austerity and samãdhi. 4.1
Although it is very straight forward, with no real room for further interpretation, it is odd that Book III was all about the relationship between samyama and siddhi, then we have 4.1, and these causes are not discussed further in any details. So, personally, 4.1 sticks out a bit like a sore thumb for me.
So, with that, we might move along to 4.2:
jãtyantara-parinãmah prakrityãpUrãt 4.2
Or,
Because of the abundance of Nature/Prakriti, there is an evolution/transformation in births. 4.2
There are a variety of interpretations for this sutra, but I am inclined to go with the concept that because of the abundance of Nature, there is diversity in Life...makes sense. More or less Darwin's theory of evolution (parinãma) in a Yogic nutshell. As we saw in Book III, parinãma is the essence of growth for the Yogi/ni as well. Without that evolution or transformation, there is no progress.
Moving onto 4.3, we arrive at an extended metaphor that is usually explained in terms of agricultural irrigation:
nimittam-aprayojakam prakritInãm varna-bhedas-tu tatah kshetrivat 4.3
Giving us,
Causality is ultimately non-useful, for natural modalities [parinãma/evolution/transformation]; as such, as a farmer irrigates a field, impediments are cut away.
The general analogy here is lost on modern ears, so it is best to defer to the commentaries about this metaphor. In traditional agriculture, the farmer would have little sluices/trenches in the ground and would move the earth to re-channel the water. Here, Patañjali is saying that ultimately the efficient cause of things is irrelevant because in the end, the obstacles must be cleared, which is again, the goal of Yoga here. There is cause and effect in the physical world, that is not to be denied, but what the Yogi/ni is moving towards is the free-flowing of the mind, devoid of the cluttering of obstacles caused by a-vidyã.
And, moving on, we arrive at:
nirmãna-cittãnyasmitã-mãtrãt 4.4
Or,
Transforming thoughts are solely the product of the Ego. 4.4
In other words, the sense of being "I" is what causes the perception of change. It is the first division of the mind, separating "I" from "everything else" and from there, one perceives change in Time and Space, whereas without that construct, there are no divisions as we shall see later in the chapter. The situational irony at hand is that kaivalya is the movement back to singularity, the all-encompassing "I" with no separation, but it is that very "I" that causes the separation, but also what is the Seer who must transcend itself...it is the Ouroboros of consciousness, the snake which swallows its own tail and ultimately disappears...
And, so, we move along to find out how, step by step.
pravritti-bhede prayojakam cittam-ekam-anekanãm 4.5
Giving us,
A single, necessary consciousness exists in the immanent division of [conceived] pluralities. 4.5
Here we begin our journey to catch the Bull as we see in the 10 Bulls story of Zen. The "Bull" is the Self or consciousness that one needs to catch and tame; but that is the illusion. The Bull was never lost, never not one with the boy. And, in the end, they are both transcended, which is then, and only then, the true singular consciousness, the kaivalya.
And, then,
tatra dhyãna-jam-anãshayam 4.6
As such, the freedom from karmic stock is born from intense concentration. 4.6
Dhyãna, then, the root of the word Zen itself as well, is the means towards the solution. What binds us to our prejudices and false perceptions is karma, or the deeds of our Past. Again, karma is neither good, nor bad, but it just is. Our Past simply is, but, it is the baggage the prohibits our freedom from a-vidyã... Dhyãna, the core element of the samyama that we learned about at length in Book III is again just the means, not the solution itself. For that, we need to go further...
To be continued...
Book IV will bring us challenges to be sure. The nominal title given to this Book is Kaivalya, which as we have seen means: to be utterly alone; a singularity. However, this singularity is no less than the pinnacle of self-awareness, the goal of Yoga, which is why we began this journey. Book IV is no longer a road map as we have seen in Book II with the introduction of the 8 Limbs of Yoga. It is not a cautionary tale of what could go wrong if we let our Ego be overcome by the powers of Siddhi as in Book III. And, though it will hearken back to the original explanation of the quest for Samãdhi in Book I, where we began, it shall move even further beyond...
One of the oft-quoted definitions of Yoga is from the Bhagavad Gita in 2.50 with the phrase: yogah karmasu kaushalam, or Yoga is skill in actions. A common crossover, and related, phrase that we also see in Zen is upaya kaushalya, or skillful/expedient means. Up to this point, we have been encountering a mixture of these two concepts on the path of Yoga, as being a sort of skillful means to navigate through actions. Now, however, it is time to see where that has led us with respect to avidyã, or ignorance, and the relationship to duhkham, or suffering, which from YS 2.16, we saw was the purpose of Yoga: to avoid suffering that has not yet manifested/happened.
In other words, what have we learned?
One of the words that has been coming up quite often and its importance being made more each time is the concept of parinãma, or change/evolution/transformation.
Why is this so important to our Yoga path? Simply put, without change, without an evolution of thinking from experience or without a transformation from what we were when we began, then nothing has happened. Or worse, we have been given vidyã, and yet we choose avidyã. In Book VI of Plato's Republic, there is the story that has generally become known as "The Allegory of the Cave."
It tells the story of our condition as being shackled to benches in a cave, with our backs to the opening of the cave. By way of the light source behind us, shadows of figures are cast upon the wall in front of us, with everyone believing, "this is reality." However, one prisoner escapes, crawls out of the cave and "sees the true Light" and is literally blinded for a while. When his sight returns, he is in awe of the Beauty he now see for the first time. He goes back to share this wonderful gift to his fellow prisoners of the cave. They promptly think him mad, and are annoyed that he disturbs their mindless and false entertainment of the shadows dancing on the wall. So, they do what we always do to those who wish to share vidyã to our avidyã. They kill him.
The Yoga Sutras, likewise, are offering a key to the shackles. And yet, in the name of "Yoga" so many people shun the hard work, the abhyãsa in favor of bumper-stickers turn it into a multi-billion dollar network, all the while apparently being oh-so appalled at those who dare to make money off of Yoga as it is not "real Yoga." And, yet, what is the "real" Yoga that they speak of? I wonder.
But, all in good time.
We begin with Book IV as we begin our end. It begins, however, a bit bumpy with some curiosities before we get back on track so to speak.
4.1 concludes the discussion of the Siddhis gained by various samyamas from Book III with a list of possible ways to obtain them:
janmaushadhi-mantra-tapah-samãdhijãh siddhayah 4.1
Or,
Siddhis are born from birth, herbal tonics, acts of austerity and samãdhi. 4.1
Although it is very straight forward, with no real room for further interpretation, it is odd that Book III was all about the relationship between samyama and siddhi, then we have 4.1, and these causes are not discussed further in any details. So, personally, 4.1 sticks out a bit like a sore thumb for me.
So, with that, we might move along to 4.2:
jãtyantara-parinãmah prakrityãpUrãt 4.2
Or,
Because of the abundance of Nature/Prakriti, there is an evolution/transformation in births. 4.2
There are a variety of interpretations for this sutra, but I am inclined to go with the concept that because of the abundance of Nature, there is diversity in Life...makes sense. More or less Darwin's theory of evolution (parinãma) in a Yogic nutshell. As we saw in Book III, parinãma is the essence of growth for the Yogi/ni as well. Without that evolution or transformation, there is no progress.
Moving onto 4.3, we arrive at an extended metaphor that is usually explained in terms of agricultural irrigation:
nimittam-aprayojakam prakritInãm varna-bhedas-tu tatah kshetrivat 4.3
Giving us,
Causality is ultimately non-useful, for natural modalities [parinãma/evolution/transformation]; as such, as a farmer irrigates a field, impediments are cut away.
The general analogy here is lost on modern ears, so it is best to defer to the commentaries about this metaphor. In traditional agriculture, the farmer would have little sluices/trenches in the ground and would move the earth to re-channel the water. Here, Patañjali is saying that ultimately the efficient cause of things is irrelevant because in the end, the obstacles must be cleared, which is again, the goal of Yoga here. There is cause and effect in the physical world, that is not to be denied, but what the Yogi/ni is moving towards is the free-flowing of the mind, devoid of the cluttering of obstacles caused by a-vidyã.
And, moving on, we arrive at:
nirmãna-cittãnyasmitã-mãtrãt 4.4
Or,
Transforming thoughts are solely the product of the Ego. 4.4
In other words, the sense of being "I" is what causes the perception of change. It is the first division of the mind, separating "I" from "everything else" and from there, one perceives change in Time and Space, whereas without that construct, there are no divisions as we shall see later in the chapter. The situational irony at hand is that kaivalya is the movement back to singularity, the all-encompassing "I" with no separation, but it is that very "I" that causes the separation, but also what is the Seer who must transcend itself...it is the Ouroboros of consciousness, the snake which swallows its own tail and ultimately disappears...
And, so, we move along to find out how, step by step.
pravritti-bhede prayojakam cittam-ekam-anekanãm 4.5
Giving us,
A single, necessary consciousness exists in the immanent division of [conceived] pluralities. 4.5
Here we begin our journey to catch the Bull as we see in the 10 Bulls story of Zen. The "Bull" is the Self or consciousness that one needs to catch and tame; but that is the illusion. The Bull was never lost, never not one with the boy. And, in the end, they are both transcended, which is then, and only then, the true singular consciousness, the kaivalya.
And, then,
tatra dhyãna-jam-anãshayam 4.6
As such, the freedom from karmic stock is born from intense concentration. 4.6
Dhyãna, then, the root of the word Zen itself as well, is the means towards the solution. What binds us to our prejudices and false perceptions is karma, or the deeds of our Past. Again, karma is neither good, nor bad, but it just is. Our Past simply is, but, it is the baggage the prohibits our freedom from a-vidyã... Dhyãna, the core element of the samyama that we learned about at length in Book III is again just the means, not the solution itself. For that, we need to go further...
To be continued...
Friday, August 24, 2018
Sunday, August 12, 2018
And, Along came a Spider (Yoga Sutras 3.35-37)
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!
Saturday, July 7, 2018
Turn and Face the Strange...(ch-ch-ch-changes...Yoga Sutras 3.8-13)
In our last post, we began our descent into the tricky Black Rabbit (W)hole-y Trinity of Dhãranã-Dhyãna-Samãdhi, which for all intents and purposes becomes the collective Samyama from this point onwards in the Sutras. These final three limbs of the asthanga path for Patañjali are inherently different and thus treated separately than the previous 5 (Yama, Ni-Yama, Ãsana, Prãnãyãma and Pratyãhãra). As Patañjali tells us in 3.7, these three are more internal than the other five, meaning that once arrive at this stage, we are transcending the physical and entering the meta-physical. However, even the triumvirate of the Samyama is merely a tool, a skill an upãya for us to go even further, deeper and more profoundly as is hinted in 3.8:
Tadapi bahir-angam nirbijasya 3.8
Even this (trinity-->Samyama) is an
external limb of nirbija (samãdhi) 3.8
Grammatically, the Samyama is taken as a
singular unit (tad angam) of nirbija (samãdhi), which as we
saw at the end of Book I, is the ultimate goal of Yoga.
To achieve nirbija samãdhi, we will have to transcend even the
fundamental concept of duality that is the root of our perception of
reality. Nirbija, to put it simply, is beyond the pale of even
thought itself. It is the moment before the Big Bang, the ultimate Shunyata,
or Void. The Rabbit Hole par excellence. And, as we shall see,
echoing the advice Peter Parker receives from his uncle, "with great power
comes great responsibility" and ostensibly, most of the remainder of Book
III is about the powers that one can achieve with the use of Samyama at
its fullest potential, but all of it encapsulated in a heavy warning that power
deceives and the ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
Before delving into the supernatural world
of the siddhis, or powers of Yoga via Samyama, we first
need to do a familiar take two steps backwards before taking a step forward
with Patañjali. Stepping back then all the way to our primal definition of Yoga
in 1.2, namely the uber-cited, Yogas'citta-vritti-nirodhah, we now deal
with nirodah in detail because that is the key to
attaining nirbija samãdhi. Unlike the 8 limbs which are means,
or upãya, nirodhah is the result of these means.
Unfortunately, 3.9, which is the
elaboration of nirodhah, is a bit of a tar baby. It is not easy to
get a handle on, and to be honest, I am still wrestling with this one (hence
the lacuna of posts of late...). So, this is a working translation so that we
can move along. And, trust me, in all of the many translations of this Sutra,
there is very little consensus except that nirodhah is what is
at stake here...
Vyutthãna-nirodha-samskãrayor-abhibhava-prãdurbhãvau
nirodha-kshana-cittãnvayo nirodha-parinãmah
3.9
The cultivation/evolution (parinãmah) of restraint/temperance (nirodha) is connected to the mind at the moment of nirodhah at the emergence of the mental impression (samskãra) of restraint and the suppression of the transient impressions. 3.9
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Okay, this is messy, and is uncharacteristically tautological for Patañjali in that he uses nirodhah to define nirodhah, leaving us a bit none the wiser about what nirodhah is.
To paraphrase 3.9 a bit then, we can tease out the following:
When the fleeting impressions of the mind that cause us to pre-judge something subside and the control of the mind yields clarity of thought with the absence of these impressions, then we are cultivating temperance of the mind.
In layman's terms...When we declutter the mind with our prejudices from experience, things become clearer in the mind.
Again, this is a bit murky, but the gist is there. Experience is a good thing, until it clouds the mind about how we perceive the reality before us. Samyama then becomes the scrubbing element to clean our files and to provide us with clear vision without pre-conceived ideas caused by the samskãras, or mental impressions that both allow us to function in reality, but also cause us to be conditioned by our thoughts. The moksha, or liberation, that Yoga promises is the release from the bondage of those pre-conditioned thoughts, which ultimately lead to desire and thus suffering (duhkham) as they are based upon ignorance (avidyã), such as mistaking a piece of rope on the pathway for a snake.
Moving on then to 3.10, we see:
Tasya
prashãnta-vãhitã samskãrãt 3.10
The peaceful flow
of nirodha-parinãmah comes from mental imprinting (samskãra). 3.10
Tasya, or "of it/its" should refer to nirodha-parinãmah (cultivation/evolution of restraint) as that was the subject of the previous sutra. As such, the emergent samskãra (mental impression) of nirodha then is what drives the evolution/cultivation of nirodha. So, still a bit clumsy and tautological by using the same term to define itself. What seems to be the case is that by practice then of restraint, restraint evolves, or changes. In other words, we are back to the concept of abhyãsa, or practice that is sustained over a long period of time with reverence. Once again, this is not a quick fix. Patience is the core of Yoga.
From the parinãma (change/evolution/cultivation) of nirodha, we move onto that of samãdhi in 3.11:
Sarva-arthataikãgrataho
kshaya-udayau cittasya samãdhi-parinãmah
3.11
The
cultivation/evolution (parinãmah) of samãdhi of the mind is in the rise of singularity of
thought and destruction of the multiplicity of goals/aims. 3.11
Take-home message here then is: Keep it Simple, Stupid, or KISS...sage advice. The mind is awash with a multitude of things to do. We praise multi-tasking, but ultimately that leads to a fractured mind, whereas a singularity of attention or focus in the mind leads to deliverance. This singularity, which culminates in Kaivalyam, is the result of the profundity of the Samyama, with practice. As we shall soon see, the singularity of the object itself can be many, and thus yield many siddhis (powers), but these too shall prove to be illusory and deceptions caused by desire, which ultimately again lead to suffering...So, it is not merely the singularity, but what that singularity is that shall become the driving force of Kaivalya, produced by the abhyãsa and vairagyam we saw at the beginning of the Sutras so long ago when our Bee woke us up...
Moving along then to the next change that is important, that of the singularity of the mind's eye, we arrive at 3.12:
Tatah punah
shãntoditau tulya-pratyayau cittasyaikãgratãparinãmah 3.12
At that time
again, the evolution of the singularity of the mind is in the equality of
thought with the emergent present and the subdued past. 3.12
Or, at the moment of the singularity of the mind, past and present melt into each other and Time become irrelevant. The Rabbit Hole no longer even exists...for, as the Black Hole in physics devours its own light and energy, so too does the singularity of the mind with respect to Time and Space.
And, in this state of singularity, the "truth of the matter" begins to be revealed as we see in 3.13...
Etena
bhutendriyeshu dharma-lakshanãvastha-parinãmã vyãkhyãtãh 3.13
With this
singularity of the mind, the evolutions of dharma, quality and state of being
are explained within the innate senses. 3.13
In other words, when the mind has shed itself of the noise, it can finally "see" things properly with the unclouded mind's eye.
But, as with all promises of divine insight, we must tread lightly and be careful of what we ask for. For, like the prisoner who escapes the allegorical Cave in Plato's Republic, once you "see the Light," it is impossible to go back, and furthermore, others may not be so keen upon hearing about your new-found discovery of liberation (moksha) and bliss (ananda)...
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)