Danger Will Robinson, Danger…!
When I teach a Yoga class, one of the things I like to say
is that there is no One Size Fits All in Yoga…and as we shall see, I think that
holds true for the Yoga Sutras.
Okay, as mentioned previously, sometimes the Yoga Sutras are startling clear and lucid, while at other times, they can be quite opaque and
murky. Sutras 1.17-22 are just such an example of the latter. I am going to be going notionally rogue on this post and make a few major departures from the traditional
translations and interpretations of these Sutras as a result. Having read about
7 different translations and checking Vyãsa’s commentary, only one thing is
certain about this handful of Sutras, namely, No-thing. There is no general
consensus at all, so I am going to do something crazy here, and that is, to
just look at the Sanskrit and see what it says. So, again, bear with me. This
is a work in progress.
Let’s begin (again).
With the last few Sutras (YS 1.12-16) we learned about the
two-pronged method of Abhyãsa and Vairãgyam as a means for obtaining the nirodhah, or temperance/cessation of the
vritti’s, the mental fluctuations of
the mind as per Patañjali’s definition that this is the goal of Yoga. In 1.16,
we see that the highest form of that, (vairãgyam) is the absence of desire/thirst of the gunas for the perception of the
Soul. In other words, transcending any prejudices we may have of an object
or experience, we can still the noise in the mind.
Yet, suddenly, in 1.17, the text seems to skip to an entirely new
concept, or at least according to the commentaries, but not necessarily the
Sanskrit. In the commentary, it is said that (Samprajñah) Samãdhi,
the final stage of the ashtanga system of Patañjali (to be discussed in
detail in chapter II) is the subject, not vairãgyam. This doesn’t jibe
with me, nor the language.
Let’s take a look at the actual words, not the interpretation for a
moment. Here are 1.17-20, because semantically, the function more like a
quatrain, rather than individual thoughts, which would be more in line with the
method of writing Sutras. So, here it goes.
Vitarkavicãrãnandãsmitãrupãnugamãt
samprajñãtah 1.17
Virãmaprtyayãbhyãsapurvah
samskãrashesho’anyah 1.18
Bhavapratyayo
videhaprakritilayãnãm 1.19
Shraddhãviryasmritisamãdhitprajñãpurvaka
itareshãm 1.20
Before translating, a quick note on structure, which is going to inform
my translation, and that will be the cause of me going quite rogue from the
tradition. Without bogging you down with details, from the grammar, we see two
parallel constructions: 1.17 and 1.18 are a case of “on the one hand…on the
other hand” and then furthermore 1.17 seems (and I mean seems as it is not
clear) to go with 1.19 and 1.18 with 1.20.
So,…
A trial:
On the one hand,
it (supreme vairãgyam) is recognized/characterized as being accompanied by the
Ego’s (asmitã) delight (ãnanda) in rational deliberation (vicãra) and
conjecture (vitarka). 1.17
And, on the
other hand, it is characterized as a residue of impressions of previous
diligent practice (abhyãsa) of the cessation of analysis (in other words,
cittavrittinirodaha…that is Yogah). 1.18
Pause.
Okay, this may seem innocent enough, but, anyone who knows the
traditional interpretation of these two lines just blew a gasket…
Vyãsa, the main commentator of the Sutras (and every other Sanskrit
work, meaning, it is not a real person as Vyãsa means “editor” or “compiler”)
says the subject now is Samãdhi, and that is how it has been taken for
centuries upon centuries. This would not be so troublesome if the theory that
this Vyãsa might actually be Patañjali himself, meaning, the commentary is by
the author.
As such, the usual translation interprets this as Samprajña Samãdhi
as having four stages: conjecture, deliberation, bliss and Ego-awarenes. Fine,
but coming from Patañjali, a writer who loves to define things as we have seen and will see again, there is no mention of Samãdhi
here, and then furthermore, no mention of a-Samprajñã Samãdhi, which is
how 1.18 is taken…Does not seem to work for me, at all. It is much more logical that
this is a continuation of thought from 1.15-16, that being the param vairãgyam, or highest level of relinquishing our desire/thirst for material objects and their effects.
So, now that Vyãsa is properly turning in his grave, let’s continue with
1.19-20:
For those
absorbed in disembodied materialism, [there is] the notion of becoming. 1.19
For others, [there
is] a previous knowledge of the synthesis (samãdhi) of a vigorous memory of
Faith (shraddhã). 1.20
What the…?
Because of the grammar, again, these lines can be
interpreted/translated completely differently, but, there are some subtle clues
that suggest otherwise, which I will not bore you with the details (you can
write me personally, then I’ll bore you with them!). In a follow-up post, I will provide a few of these variations, but for clarity, let us continue as is.
Let’s turn all of this into readable language then, because that is my
two-fold goal: to make the Sutras readable and relevant, while also sticking to
the Sanskrit as much as possible and not getting mired in the Theory that has been piled upon
them over the years. Occam’s Razor, the theory the suggests the simplest answer
is the correct one, is being applied here by me. So, we shall cut into this and
then suture it up with clarity.
So,
The highest form
of vairãgyam for those absorbed in the thought of non-materialism, there is a
sense of becoming (being) that is characterized by the Ego’s delight in
rational analysis and conjecture. 1.17 and 1.19
For others, there
is the strong memory of the notion of Faith, and vairãgyam is the residue of
impressions (our filters/prejudices) from quieting the fluctuations of the
mind. 1.18 and 1.20
In other, other words.
We can achieve
the highest form of releasing our desire for materialism through engaging in
deep thought (meditation) on the nature of being, and this may result in
leaving a trace of our diligent practice of Yoga.
Meaning,
We meditate, via Yoga, and we can achieve the release of our desires,
which are the causes of our suffering and mental anguish.
Maybe. Again, this is MY interpretation and translation, and it flies
smack in the face of the tradition, but it holds to my caveat for translation:
if it made sense in the original, it has to make sense in the target language.
None of the translations I have read make sense, and they are full of side trips and
mental gymnastics to pull meanings out of these 4 Sutras that simply are not
there in the Sanskrit, neither in vocabulary, nor grammar.
Taking this leap of Faith (shraddhã) then, the next two Sutras
actually now make sense (as do the subsequent seven Sutras we shall look at in
a forthcoming post), and they are:
Tivrasamvegãnamãnnah 1.21
Mridumadhyãdhimãtratvãt 1.22
Or,
For those with
keen intensity (in praxis), (this), [that is vairãgyam]) is immanent. 1.21
For others,
there is still a distinction due to the degrees (of intensity of praxis) of mild, medium
and excessive. 1.22
Meaning,
For those with strong practice, the goal is near; but for others, with
varying degrees of effort, there is still a difference in degree of attainment.
Coming back to the thought that, there is no one size fits all for
Yoga. There will be a variety of paths, a variety of practitioners and a
variety of methods. We are not all at the same place in our practice, and
according to Patañjali here, as far as I can read it, that is perfectly
natural and is to be expected.
Moreover, going back further to the previous concept of Abhyãsa, it will
only bear fruit with a reverence for diligence over an extended period of Time,
and the milder the effort, the longer that period of Time will be; but, as we
shall also see in chapter III, TOO MUCH is just as dangerous as not enough. Once again, we
must find the balance, find the union, find the Yoga…
…To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment