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.

Splinters in the Mind’s “I” (YS 1.5-11)

Sometimes the Yoga Sutras are quite logical, almost strikingly so in their language and composition. Following the mystery character of the “seer” we are relieved to see the next 7 Sutras are quite straightforward and provide us with some important definitions. However, as we shall see, it is the application of these definitions that shall present us with the challenge. Moreover, the following Sutras show just how incredibly prescient the Sutras are, anticipating modern psychoanalysis by about 2,000 years, and they are human, oh so human.

YS 1.5 and YS 1.6 read as follows:

vrittayah pañchatayyah klishtãklishtãh  1.5

And

pramãnaviparyayvikalpanidrãsmrtayah  1.6

Translated:

The vritti’s are five in number and can be either afflicted or non-afflicted. 1.5

And

[They are] pramãna,  viparyaya, vikalpa, nidrã and smritih  1.6

Meaning,

[They are] valid/correct knowledge/experience, false knowledge/illusion, imagination, sleep (dreams) and memory. 1.6

The only comment on 1.5 is that we shall see these vritti’s can be klishta or a-klishta, (as in Ancient Greek, a short “a” most often means “not” or “lack of” the word that follows) meaning afflicted or non-afflicted, more specifically tainted by experience and prejudice. We’ll return to this in a later post.

As for 1.6, this is merely a list, and the definitions follow in the subsequent 5 Sutras, which we now turn to.

Pratyaksãnumãnãgamãh pramãnãni  1.7

Or

Pramãna (valid/correct knowledge) consists of pratyaksa (direct perception), anumãna (conjecture), and ãgamah (sacred writings).

What this means is that these are considered potentially authoritative sources of information. I want to stress the “potentially” because they can be highly misleading, misinformed, and people can be easily swayed into believing them to be true, though in truth, they may be highly tainted and afflicted with falsehood. Pratyaksa literally means “in front of the eyes.” But, as mentioned before, eye-witness accounts can fool both us and those we are reporting to.

Anumãna means  something akin to the Greek concept of anamnesis, which is literally bringing up to the surface of the mind, to conjecture is to throw it up and out to the world from within our minds. Yet, again, this can lead to misinformation as even Sherlock Holmes can make mistakes….

And, finally, the one that is a personal pet peeve of mine. When someone says, “but I read it in a book, it must be true…” Were I to have a dollar each time I heard this as “proof,” well, I wouldn’t be worried about making a living, that’s for sure. Placing all your bets on something just because it is written is a very slippery slope indeed. As such, our three types of  “correct” knowledge are all highly susceptible to being false, hence qualifying as a vritti that needs to be reined in by Yoga.

Viparyayah mithyãjñãnamatadrupapratishtham  1.8

Or

Viparyayah (illusion) is erroneous knowledge that is not rooted in the thing itself. 1.8

In other words, we say “this”, when in reality, it is “that”.  The classic Indian example that I have written about before is when one is walking down a pathway in poor light and he or she sees a long cylindrical object on the path and the mind immediately imagines it to be a deadly cobra, but in reality, it is a rope. Sometimes our minds process faster than we are aware, and in the instant, we can experience viparyayah. Or, more commonly, we can convince ourselves that something is other than it is. Sound familiar?

Shabdajñãnãnupãti vastushunyo vikalpah  1.9

Or

Vikalpah (imagination) is something devoid of reality contingent upon the knowledge of its verbal expression.

Simply put, we imagine things based upon our experience of hearing/reading about something and then creating a story that is not founded upon reality. It is quite the flavor of the times to talk about “creating stories” for ourselves that deceive us. Patañjali was way ahead of the curve on this one. I don’t want to live in a world devoid of imagination, but when we need to get the balance right, it is our stories (sometimes known as lies) that we tell ourselves and others that can knock things out of whack, and they are often highly prevalent in relationships, whether with friends or lovers, and this can be quite troublesome. I speak from experience. Imagination is a fickle beast.

Abhãvapratyayãlmbanã vrittirnidrã 1.10

Or

Nidrã (sleep, dreams inclusive) sleep is a modality founded upon a lack of understanding or awareness.

In other words, sleep/dreams are a subconscious modulation of the mind. Hmmmm…let’s see, I’ve heard that before. Ah, yes, Sigmund Freud, who was given and took credit for dream analysis. News flash, Indian thinkers have been doing this for over 2,000 years. There is a great deal of literature on the nature of dreams in Sanskrit, especially in connection with the sacred syllable OM, or A-U-M, as I have written about before (check it out if interested). As such, when we sleep and dream, we puzzle together the pieces of our lives, interspersed with unconscious imagination, creating false knowledge, or at least, something not completely founded upon awareness, hence a vritti in our Mind’s Eye.

And, finally:

Anubhutavishayãsampramoshah smrtih  1.11

Or,

Smritih (memory) is an impression of a lived experience that remains with us.

Yet, as we can all attest, even the clearest memories take on a life of their own. We have a grave tendency to filter, for better or for worse, the memories of our lives and experiences we have lived. Sometimes we filter out bad memories and sometimes we filter out good ones, often in each case for self-protection against heartache or mental anguish. When this happens, the full gamut of the lived experiences is compromised, insufficient and can lead to delusions of times passed, again, for better or for worse.

What we can take away from these five vritti’s is that our psychological constitution does not always work in our favor. Sometimes a self-preservation kicks in, and at those moments, it may seem that we are doing ourselves a favor, but more often then not, it is repression, pure and simple. We, as a species, like to bury the dead. In another lifetime I used to work on the Irish writer James Joyce, and wrote a book on the relationship between memory and death within his writings. In a shameless bout of self-promotion I’ll quote from that work (for, I don't always know what another author may mean...but watch out for falling into the trap of ãgamah!) to conclude:

• Joyce's works were shot through with both pain and hope, the oscillation between the two were the balance of the tragi-comedy that is life, and to write was to become bigger than ourselves by becoming part of something larger than life, memory. (from When We Waken the Dead: Readings on Memory and Death in Joyce by Robert L. Fulton, Jr.)

And so, we tell ourselves stories, in hope and in pain...often upsetting the balance of the citta, but often just to feel alive.

Was it a Snake, or was it a Stick?

In Ancient Indian philosophical treatises, one of the favorite mind games to play with someone is the question of whether it is a Snake or a Stick. Nagarjuna, sometimes called the Indian Socrates, was famous for this conundrum.

Essentially, the question is posed, if the mind thinks a stick is a snake, is it then really a snake, or is it a stick? In other words, what is more important, the perception of reality, or the reality itself?

That seems like a rhetorical question on the surface, but not quite. If one were to see a stick, and thought it was a snake, and turned and fled in fear and ran to the neighbors to tell them there is a snake in the road, and they then decided to go and investigate after calming the ophidiophobe down and assuring him that it was probably just a stick. However, in the meantime, an actual King Cobra has decided to mosey on down the lane, just about the same spot that the branch had been, that had been mistaken for a snake, and then lo and behold, there is a snake.

So, the “Truth” that will then be recorded from that day on is that it was indeed a snake and not a stick. It would have to take an eyewitness observer to have seen the whole incident to ever prove this “Truth” to be a fallacy, but if there were no perfect eidetic eyewitness to be found, this fallacy would forever be considered a truth.

For me, the take-home message is that we should be wary of what we are too quick to call THE Truth, and moreover, just because many people engage in that fallacy, does not make it any more truer than before. Not that we should doubt everything we see, but sometimes, things might need a closer look before we create the dogma that surrounds it. And, as my illustration suggestions, numbers do not necessarily make it any better.

So, next time I see a stick and perhaps think it is a snake, or vice versa, I might need to pause a bit longer, though we always run the risk of being bitten if the Truth is a snake and not a stick, so we take our chances in life.