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.

Time Out, Out of Time (Yoga Sutras 4.13-15)

Time. Who has the Time? Time for reading posts about the Yoga Sutras, for example...

We're always running out of Time, or Time is short, never enough Time...

Time has been a great fascination for me, well, for a long Time. Yet, not in the way that I am obsessed with punctuality or expensive time pieces, or that I am a clock watcher (far from it actually), but rather what I am interested in is what we are looking at today in these three sutras: The relationship between the Perception of Time and the Mind.

There is a well-worn Zen koan (illogical word puzzles to confound "rational" mind; think one hand clapping) that tells the situation of two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One asserts that the flag is moving, the other says that it is the wind that is moving. A third, much wiser of course, master overhears and tells them that they are both wrong. Not the wind, not the flag,;but the Mind is moving...

Such is the case with most things in life. Two sides arguing, both are usually in the wrong to some extent, if not fully, hence the argument.

The Mind Moves. Can it be so? What really is the passage of Time other than the perception of its passage by the mind? If we do not perceive the change, does the change happen? It's the old chestnut of the tree falling in the forest...did it make a sound? How can we ever know. For, like Schrödinger's unfortunate cat, as soon as we perceive something, we create its reality from a possibility. We decided the fate of the cat in the box as well as the flag in the wind, with our Minds.

Turning then, our minds, to the Yoga Sutras again, we have arrived at 4.13-14. Three simple, concise sutras, which read almost like a footnote. However, footnotes often contain the keys to the puzzle, so let's see what we can see here:

te vyakta-sUksmã gunãtmãnah 4.13
parinãmaikatvãt-vastu-tattvam 4.14
vastu-sãmye citta-bhedãt-tayor-vibhaktah panthãh 4.15

Giving us,

The constitution of the gunas are either prominent or subtle. 4.13
Because of the singular nature of evolution/transformation (parinãma), the essential state of an object (vastu) persists. 4.14 (we'll clean this up shortly)
Because of the difference of minds (citta) in the singularity of an object (vastu), there are divided paths for them. 4.15 (again, clean-up is coming)

Before we clean this up a bit, it is best to rehearse the three gunas and what they are because, as with the Bhagavad Gita, the Yoga Sutras primary goal is to overcome the dominance of the gunas...so, what are they?

The three gunas (qualities, characteristics, attributes) are:
Sattva--radiance, intelligence, clarity, harmony
Tamah--darkness, ignorance, obscurity, discord
Rajah--dynamism, passion, turbulence, chaos, change

Sattva is arguably the "best" guna to manifest, but, the entire system of the gunas is based upon the fact that everything is a mixture of the three, yet, at any given time, one may be dominant, and it is in our best interest to cultivate the sattva; though, at all times? Does rationality always seem like the best answer over passion and change?

Ultimately, both the Gita and the Sutras will say, like the Zen master above, mu, or neither (and both). We shall have to wait just a bit longer to go into more detail on that, but for now, we are in the realm of the gunas, and everything that we perceive in the Universe is a mixture of them.

Returning then to the 3 sutras, we see:

These three gunas then can either be manifested boldly or subtly (4.13). In other words, sometimes we may readily perceive which guna is dominant and in what proportion, other times, not so apparent.

However, it is the inherent combination of the three gunas in an object that gives it its "existence" in the physical world (4.14). We call something a name because we recognize it through the singular evolution of Time (or, rather, our perception of that transformation (parinãma)). My cat sitting in front of me is "Lucky" because he was "Lucky" yesterday and the day before, etc. If suddenly, he was "another" cat, then he would no longer be "Lucky". But, what makes him "Lucky"? At this physical level, that of Prakriti, or Nature, it is persistent constitution of gunas.

The constitution of the gunas create the quiddity of the thing, or cat, itself...or, what makes you you.

However, it's not that simple...because, what makes you you to you is different than what makes you you to me, or to your mom or dad or your best friend...

Which leads us to 4.15 again, and the question of the flag in the wind. 4.15 says that there is a singularity of the object/Cat (and its mixture of gunas), however, there are differences in minds perceiving that object/Cat, which leads to many paths, or perceptions, and ultimately perceived realities.

One of my cats was named "Babette", for example, before we adopted her. My daughter and I did not keep that name, yet, the cat remained the same, or did she? Does she become a new cat with a new name and new humans?

Comparing III.55...we have the formula of divide and conquering; uniting and transcending again. In the mind (citta) we perceive and we divide things into categories and name them. But, that stagnates them in time, freezing them in a prison of a definition as to what they "are". In the Mind's Eye, however, which is beyond reason and rational thinking, and more in the realm of intuition, imagination and proper intelligence (that is, not book learning, but "seeing" something or someone for what it or he/she is, not what we want it/them to be...), then we go beyond the moment in Time, we transcend the moment...and we then begin to finally "see the light"...

To be continued...

The Eyes Have It (YS 1.3-4)

To be seen, or not to be seen, that is the question...

One of the more "mysterious" aspects of the Yoga Sutras appears for the first time in 1.3, namely with the word drashtuh. This is the genitive form of the noun coming from the verb <<drsh>> or, to see. This verbal root is not unfamiliar in many yoga shalas as it comes into daily practice with the word drishti. Drishti, is the past passive participle of the verb and it literally means "the thing that is seen." In Yoga practice, we use this word to denote a fixed point on which to turn our gaze in order to maintain focus and balance. Usually not a good idea to choose the person wobbling in front of you in Utthita Hasta Padangusthasana (that would be me...one of my less-good asanas to be fair), but rather somewhere such as a spot on the floor or the juncture between the wall and the ceiling. However, in the Sutras, this enigmatic "seer" pops up here and there, without any real explanation as to what or who it is.

This drishti, however, is not so cryptic and simply becomes our meditative aide while holding a pose, more often than not a balance posture. As such, if we lose our focus, we lose our balance, much as in life. Our dristhi gives us purpose, direction and stability. And, when the mind wanders and wonders, the vritti's take over, and we can fall. Life and Yoga are full of distractions and obstacles, and it is a constant struggle of vigilance to maintain our dristhi.

Yoga Sutra (YS) 1.3 reads:

tadã drashtuh svarupe'vasthãnam (YS 1.3)

or,

At this time, [Yogah] abides in the true nature (svarupe) of the seer.

It is not clear if Yoga is meant here, so I have left it in a parenthetical way. Most translations take the seer to be the subject, but grammatically that is impossible. It is literally "in the true nature of the seer". No ambiguity in the Sanskrit.

However, it would be possible to also translate as:

At this time, the abiding of the seer is in its true form/nature.

The "at this time" comes from the moment when Yoga becomes the "nirodhah" of the "vritti's" as we have already seen in YS 1.2, or the goal of tempering the noise created in or by the mind.

By extension, it is tempting to then take the "seer" to be not necessarily the two eyes with which we see the world, but rather the metaphysical third eye, the mind's eye as the seer of true sight. Why? Mainly because our eyes can deceive us. Eye witness accounts are seldom correct as the mind plays tricks on us by filling in the blanks or creating the illusion of things we want to see or the delusion of removing things we do not want to see. As we shall see later, attraction and aversion are quite powerful distractions and obstacles for our minds to see clearly. Moreover, this would completely discount the perceptions of a blind person, and when one closes his or her eyes in meditation, the ocular orbs no longer serve a purpose.

So, when we can calm the machinations and fluctuations of the busy mind, the mind's eye can take over and at that moment, we can function in our "true nature" and seek out our svadharma, which is ultimately where we are going with Yoga. But, all in good time. This is the end, we have to go back to the beginning, with patience, leading us to YS 1.4

vrittisãrupyamitaratra (YS 1.4)

or

However, at other times, (there is) the appearance of behavior/conditioning.

Huh?

Again, as the sutra style leaves out certain words, such as verbs, and case endings, we have to make some guesses here and there.

When Yoga is functioning on all levels, the mind's eye can see clearly and resides within its true nature, but at other times (namely, most of the time), the mind's eye is clouded by our behavior and conditioning, in other words, by our habits borne out of ignorance, or avidyã. What is important to note here is that avidyã, or ignorance, or even a-gnosis, does not mean stupidity, but rather a lack of knowledge. Perhaps we have not seen properly with the mind's eye, or, we have forgotten. Either way, at that moment, the movements of the mind, the vritti's are in control, and we are no longer in a state of our "true nature". This is not so surprising as it would be impossible to maintain the state of samãdhi at all times as we would not be able to function in the world.

What we can strive for, at least, is to use the knowledge that we do gain in our better moments to try and help us in our, shall we say, not-so-good moments. Usually easier said than done as when we are weak in our minds, then emotions and distractions of the so-called "monkey mind" can wreak havoc on us and cause us to do stupid things, even we we should and do "know better".

Humanity 101.

Ridding ourselves, or tempering our deep-seated behaviors, conditionings and habits is a monumental task, and it takes time (perhaps a lifetime), and it takes patience, lots of it, and the path will involve failures and disappointments. Yet, the only true failure is giving up the forward progress through the dark or unfamiliar woods of the Soul's life experiences. To fail and to fall is part of life, as is suffering, but to close the Mind's Eye to the world and to the challenge of getting back up and trying again, is the only true failure.