Reading section 29

also (iv. 18), "The modifications of the understanding are always known,--this arises from the unchangeableness of the Ruling Soul." The following is the argument drawn out formally to establish the changeableness of the understanding. The understanding is susceptible of change because its various objects are now known and now not known, just like the organ of hearing and the other organs of sense. Now, this change is notoriously threefold, _i.e._, a change of "property," of "aspect,"[391] and of "condition." When the subject, the understanding, perceives the colour "blue," &c., there is a change of "property" just as when the substance "gold" becomes a bracelet, a diadem, or an armlet; there is a change of "aspect" when the property becomes present, past, or future; and there is a change of "condition" when there is a manifestation or non-manifestation[392] of the perception, as of blue, &c.; or, in the case of gold, the [relative] newness or oldness [at two different moments] would be its change of condition. These three kinds of change must be traced out by the reader for himself in different other cases. And thus we conclude that there is nothing inconsistent in our thesis that, since "right notion" and the other modifications are attributes of the understanding, their "suppression" will also have its site in the same organ.

[Our opponent now urges a fresh and long objection to what we have said above.] "But if we accept your definition that '_yoga_ is the suppression of the modifications of the _chitta_,' this will apply also to 'sound sleep,' since there too we may find the suppression [or suspension] of the modifications found in _kshipta_, _vikshipta_, _múdha_,[393] &c.; but this would be wrong, because it is impossible for the 'afflictions' to be abolished so long as those states called _kshipta_, &c., remain at all, and because they only hinder the attainment of the _summum bonum_. Let us examine this more closely. For the understanding is called _kshipta_, 'restless,' when it is restless [with an excess of the quality _rajas_], as being tossed about amidst various objects which engage it. It is called _múdha_, 'blinded,' when it is possessed by the modification 'sleep' and is sunk in a sea of darkness [owing to an excess of the quality _tamas_]. It is called _vikshipta_, 'unrestless,' when it is different from the first state[394] [as filled with the quality _sattva_]." We must here, however, note a distinction; for, in accordance with the line of the Bhagavad Gítá (vi. 34), 'The mind, O Krishna, is fickle, turbulent, violent, and obstinate,' the mind, though naturally restless, may occasionally become fixed by the transient fixedness of its objects; but restlessness is innate to it, or it is produced in it by sickness, &c., or other consequences of former actions; as it is said [in the Yoga Sútras, i. 30], 'Sickness, languor, doubt, carelessness, laziness, addiction to objects, erroneous perception, failure to attain some stage, and instability,--these distractions of the mind are called "obstacles".' Here 'sickness' means fever, &c., caused by the want of equilibrium between the three humours; 'languor' is the mind's want of activity; 'doubt' is a sort of notion which embraces two opposite alternatives; 'carelessness' is a negligence of using the means for producing meditation; 'laziness' is a want of exertion from heaviness of body, speech, or mind; 'addiction to objects' is an attachment to objects of sense; 'erroneous perception' is a mistaken notion of one thing for another; 'failure to attain some stage' is the failing for some reason or other to arrive at the state of abstract meditation; 'instability' is the mind's failure to continue there, even when the state of abstract meditation has been reached. Therefore we maintain that the suppression of the mind's modifications cannot be laid down as the definition of _yoga_.

We reply, that even although we allow that, so far as regards the three conditions of the mind called _kshipta_, _múdha_, and _vikshipta_, which [as being connected with the three qualities] are all to be avoided as faulty states, the suppression of the modifications in these conditions is itself something to be avoided [and so cannot be called _yoga_], this does not apply to the other two conditions called _ekágra_ and _niruddha_, which are to be pursued and attained; and therefore the suppression of the modifications in these two praiseworthy conditions is rightly to be considered as _yoga_. Now by _ekágra_ we mean that state when the mind, entirely filled with the _sattva_ quality, is devoted to the one object of meditation; and by _niruddha_ we mean that state when all its developments are stopped, and only their latent impressions [or potentialities] remain.

Now this _samádhi_, "meditation" [in the highest sense], is twofold: "that in which there is distinct recognition" (_samprajñáta_), and "that in which distinct recognition is lost" (_asamprajñáta_) [Yoga S., i. 17, 18].[395] The former is defined as that meditation where the thought is intent on its own object, and all the "modifications," such as "right notion," &c., so far as they depend on external things, are suppressed, or, according to the etymology of the term, it is where the intellect[396] is thoroughly recognised (_samyak prajñáyate_) as distinct from Nature. It has a fourfold division, as _savitarka_, _savichára_, _sánanda_, and _sásmita_. Now this "meditation" is a kind of "pondering" (_bhávaná_), which is the taking into the mind again and again, to the exclusion of all other objects, that which is to be pondered. And that which is thus to be pondered is of two kinds, being either Íswara or the twenty-five principles. And these principles also are of two kinds--senseless and not senseless. Twenty-four, including nature, intellect, egoism, &c., are senseless; that which is not senseless is Soul. Now among these objects which are to be pondered, when, having taken as the object the gross elements, as earth, &c., pondering is pursued in the form of an investigation as to which is antecedent and which consequent,[397] or in the form of a union of the word, its meaning, and the idea which is to be produced [cf. i. 42]; then the meditation is called "argumentative" (_savitarka_). When, having taken as its object something subtile, as the five subtile elements and the internal organ, pondering is pursued in relation to space, time, &c., then the meditation is called "deliberative" (_savichára_). When the mind, commingled with some "passion" and "darkness," is pondered, then the meditation is called "beatific" (_sánanda_), because "goodness" is then predominant, which consists in the manifestation of joy.[398] When pondering is pursued, having as its object the pure element of "goodness," unaffected by even a little of "passion" or "darkness," then that meditation is called "egoistical" (_sásmita_), because here personal existence[399] only remains, since the intellectual faculty becomes now predominant, and the quality of "goodness" has become quite subordinate [as a mere stepping-stone to higher things].

But the "meditation, where distinct recognition is lost," consists in the suppression of all "modifications" whatever.

"But" [it may be asked] "was not 'concentration' defined as the suppression of all the modifications? How, then, can the 'meditation where there is distinct recognition' be included in it at all, since we still find active in it that modification of the mind, with the quality of goodness predominant, which views the soul and the quality of goodness as distinct from each other?" This, however, is untenable, because we maintain that concentration is the suppression of the "modifications" of the thinking power, as especially stopping the operation of the "afflictions," the "actions," the "fructifications," and the "stock of deserts."[400]

The "afflictions" (_klesa_) are well known as five, viz., ignorance, egoism, desire, aversion, and tenacity of mundane existence. But here a question is at once raised, In what sense is the word _avidyá_, "ignorance," used here? Is it to be considered as an _avyayíbháva_ compound, where the former portion is predominant, as in the word "above-board"?[401] or is it a _tatpurusha_ [or _karmadháraya_] compound, where the latter portion is predominant, as in the word "town-clerk"? or is it a _bahuvríhi_ compound, where both portions are dependent on something external to the compound, as "blue-eyed"? It cannot be the first; for if the former portion of the compound were predominant, then we should have the negation the emphatic part in _avidyá_ (_i.e._, it would be an instance of what is called the express negation, or _prasajya-pratishedha_);[402] and consequently, as _avidyá_ would be thus emphatically a negation, it would be unable to produce positive results, as the "afflictions," &c., and the very form of the word should not be feminine, but neuter. It cannot be the second; for any knowledge, whatever thing's absence it may be characterised by (_a_ + _vidyá_), opposes the "afflictions," &c., and cannot therefore be their source. Nor can it be the third; for then,--in accordance with the words of the author of the Vritti,[403] "there is a _bahuvríhi_ compound which is formed with some word meaning 'existence' used after 'not,' with the optional elision of this subsequent word"[404]--we must explain this supposed _bahuvríhi_ compound _avidyá_ as follows: "That _buddhi_ is to be characterised as _avidyá_ (_sc._ an adjective), of which there is not a _vidyá_ existing." But this explanation is untenable; for such an _avidyá_ could not become the source of the "afflictions;"[405] and yet, on the other hand, it ought to be their source,[406] even though it were associated with the suppression of all the "modifications,"[407] and were also accompanied by that discriminative knowledge of the soul and the quality of goodness [which is found in the _sásmita_ meditation].

Now it is said [in the Yoga Sútras, ii. 4], "Ignorance is the field [or place of origin, _i.e._, source] of the others, whether they be dormant, extenuated, intercepted, or simple." They are said to be "dormant" when they are not manifested for want of something to wake them up; they are called "extenuated" when, through one's meditating on something that is opposed to them, they are rendered inert; they are called "intercepted" when they are overpowered by some other strong "affliction;" they are called "simple" when they produce their several effects in the direct vicinity of what co-operates with them. This has been expressed by Váchaspati Misra, in his Gloss on Vyása's Commentary, in the following memorial stanza:--

"The dormant 'afflictions' are found in those souls which are absorbed in the _tattvas_ [_i.e._, not embodied, but existing in an interval of mundane destruction]; the 'extenuated'[408] are found in _yogins_; but the 'intercepted' and the 'simple' in those who are in contact with worldly objects."

"No one proposes the fourth solution of the compound _avidyá_ as a _dvandva_ compound,[409] where both portions are equally predominant, because we cannot recognise here two equally independent subjects. Therefore under any one of these three admissible alternatives[410] the common notion of ignorance as being the cause of the 'afflictions' would be overthrown."

[We do not, however, concede this objector's view], because we may have recourse to the other kind of negation called _paryudása_ [where the affirmative part is emphatic], and maintain that _avidyá_ means a contradictory [or _wrong_] kind of knowledge, the reverse of _vidyá_; and so it has been accepted by ancient writers. Thus it has been said--

"The particle implying 'negation' does not signify 'absence' [or 'non-existence'] when connected with a noun or a root; thus the words _abráhmana_ and _adharma_ respectively signify, 'what is other than a Bráhman' and 'what is contrary to justice.'"

And again--

"We are to learn all the uses of words from the custom of the ancient writers; therefore a word must not be wrested from the use in which it has been already employed."

Váchaspati also says,[411] "The connection of words and their meanings depends on general consent for its certainty; and since we occasionally see that a _tatpurusha_ negation, where the latter portion is properly predominant, may overpower the direct meaning of this latter portion by its contradiction of it, we conclude that even here too [in _avidyá_] the real meaning is something contrary to _vidyá_" [_i.e._, the negative "non-knowledge" becomes ultimately the positive "ignorance"[412]]. It is with a view to this that it is said in the Yoga Aphorisms [ii. 5], "Ignorance is the notion that the non-eternal, the impure, pain, and the non-soul are (severally) eternal, pure, pleasure, and soul." _Viparyaya_, "misconception," is defined as "the imagining of a thing in what is not that thing,"[413] [_i.e._, in its opposite]; as, for instance, the imagining the "eternal" in a "non-eternal" thing, _i.e._, a jar, or the imagining the "pure" in the "impure" body,[414] when it has been declared by a proverbial couplet[415]--

"The wise recognise the body as impure, from its original place [the womb],--from its primal seed,--from its composition [of humours, &c.],--from perspiration,--from death [as even a Bráhman's body defiles],--and from the fact that it has to be made pure by rites."

So,--in accordance with the principle enounced in the aphorism (ii. 15), "To the discriminating everything is simply pain, through the pain which arises in the ultimate issue of everything,[416] or through the anxiety to secure it [while it is enjoyed], or through the latent impressions which it leaves behind, and also from the mutual opposition of the influences of the three qualities" [in the form of pleasure, pain, and stupid indifference],--ignorance transfers the idea of "pleasure" to what is really "pain," as, _e.g._, garlands, sandal-wood, women, &c.; and similarly it conceives the "non-soul," _e.g._, the body, &c., as the "soul." As it has been said--

"But ignorance is when living beings transfer the notion of 'soul' to the 'non-soul,' as the body, &c.;

"This causes bondage; but in the abolition thereof is liberation."

Thus this ignorance consists of four kinds.[417]

But [it may be objected] in these four special kinds of ignorance should there not be given some general definition applying to them all, as otherwise their special characteristics cannot be established? For thus it has been said by Bhatta Kumárila--

"'Without some general definition, a more special definition cannot be given by itself; therefore it must not be even mentioned here.'"

This, however, must not be urged here, as it is sufficiently met by the general definition of misconception, already adduced above, as "the imagining of a thing in its opposite."

"Egoism" (_asmitá_) is the notion that the two separate things, the soul and the quality of purity,[418] are one and the same, as is said (ii. 6), "Egoism is the identifying of the seer with the power of sight." "Desire" (_rága_) is a longing, in the shape of a thirst, for the means of enjoyment, preceded by the remembrance of enjoyment, on the part of one who has known joy. "Aversion" (_dvesha_) is the feeling of blame felt towards the means of pain, similarly preceded by the remembrance of pain, on the part of one who has known it. This is expressed in the two aphorisms, "Desire is what dwells on pleasure;" "Aversion is what dwells on pain" (ii. 7, 8).

Here a grammatical question may be raised, "Are we to consider this word _anusayin_ ('dwelling') as formed by the _krit_ affix _nini_ in the sense of 'what is habitual,' or the _taddhita_ affix _ini_ in the sense of _matup_? It cannot be the former, since the affix _nini_ cannot be used after a root compounded with a preposition as _anusí_; for, as the word _supi_ has already occurred in the Sútra, iii. 2, 4, and has been exerting its influence in the following sútras, this word must have been introduced a second time in the Sútra, iii. 2, 78, _supy ajátau ninis táchchhílye_,[419] on purpose to exclude prepositions, as these have no case terminations; and even if we did strain a point to allow them, still it would follow by the Sútra, vii. 2, 115, _acho ñniti_,[420] that the radical vowel must be subject to _vriddhi_, and so the word must be _anusáyin_, in accordance with the analogy of such words as _atisáyin_, &c. Nor is the latter view tenable (_i.e._, that it is the _taddhita_ affix _ini_[421]), since _ini_ is forbidden by the technical verse--

'These two affixes[422] are not used after a monosyllable nor a _krit_ formation, nor a word meaning 'genus,' nor with a word in the locative case;'

and the word _anusaya_ is clearly a _krit_ formation as it ends with the affix _ach_[423] [which brings it under this prohibition, and so renders it insusceptible of the affix _ini_]. Consequently, the word _anusayin_ in the Yoga aphorism is one the formation of which it is very hard to justify."[424] This cavil, however, is not to be admitted; since the rule is only to be understood as applying generally, not absolutely, as it does not refer to something of essential importance. Hence the author of the Vritti has said--

"The word _iti_, as implying the idea of popular acceptation, is everywhere connected with the examples of this rule[425] [_i.e._, it is not an absolute law]."

Therefore, sometimes the prohibited cases are found, as _káryin_, _káryika_ [where the affixes are added after a _krit_ formation], _tandulin_, _tandulika_ [where they are added after a word meaning "genus"]. Hence the prohibition is only general, not absolute, after _krit_ formations and words meaning "genus," and therefore the use of the affix _ini_ is justified, although the word _anusaya_ is formed by a _krit_ affix. This doubt therefore is settled.

The fifth "affliction," called "tenacity of mundane existence" (_abhinivesa_), is what prevails in the case of all living beings, from the worm up to the philosopher, springing up daily, without any immediate cause, in the form of a dread, "May I not be separated from the body, things sensible, &c.," through the force of the impression left by the experience of the pain of the deaths which were suffered in previous lives, this is proved by universal experience, since every individual has the wish, "May I not cease to be," "May I be." This is declared in the aphorism, "Tenacity of mundane existence, flowing on through its own nature, is notorious even in the case of the philosopher" [ii. 9]. These five, "ignorance," &c., are well known as the "afflictions" (_klesa_), since they afflict the soul, as bringing upon it various mundane troubles.

[We next describe the _karmásaya_ of ii. 12, the "stock of works" or "merits" in the mind.] "Works" (_karman_) consist of enjoined or forbidden actions, as the _jyotishtoma_ sacrifice, bráhmanicide, &c. "Stock" (_ásaya_) is the balance of the fruits of previous works, which lie stored up in the mind in the form of "mental deposits" of merit or demerit, until they ripen in the individual soul's own experience as "rank," "years," and "enjoyment" [ii. 13].

Now "concentration" [_yoga_] consists [by i. 2] in "the suppression of the modifications of the thinking principle," which stops the operation of the "afflictions," &c.; and this "suppression" is not considered to be merely the non-existence of the modifications [_i.e._, a mere negation], because, if it were a mere negation, it could not produce positive impressions on the mind; but it is rather the site of this non-existence,[426]--a particular state of the thinking principle, called by the four names [which will be fully described hereafter], _madhumatí_, _madhupratíká_, _visoká_, and _samskáraseshatá_. The word _nirodha_ thus corresponds to its etymological explanation as "that in which the modifications of the thinking principle, right notion, misconception, &c., are suppressed (_nirudhyante_). This suppression of the modifications is produced by "exercise" and "dispassion" [i. 12]. "Exercise is the repeated effort that the internal organ shall remain in its proper state" [i. 13]. This "remaining in its proper state" is a particular kind of development, whereby the thinking principle remains in its natural state, unaffected by those modifications which at different times assume the form of revealing, energising, and controlling.[427] "Exercise" is an effort directed to this, an endeavour again and again to reduce the internal organ to such a condition. The locative case, _sthitau_, in the aphorism is intended to express the object or aim, as in the well-known phrase, "He kills the elephant for its skin."[428] "Dispassion is the consciousness of having overcome desire in him who thirsts after neither the objects that are seen nor those that are heard of in revelation" [i. 15]. "Dispassion" is thus the reflection, "These objects are subject to me, not I to them," in one who feels no interest in the things of this world or the next, from perceiving the imperfections attached to them.

Now, in order to reduce the "afflictions" which hinder meditation and to attain meditation, the _yogin_ must first direct his attention to practical concentration, and "exercise" and "dispassion" are of especial use in its attainment. This has been said by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gítá [vi. 3]--

"Action is the means to the sage who wishes to rise to _yoga_;

But to him who has risen to it, tranquillity is said to be the means."

Patañjali has thus defined the practical _yoga_: "Practical concentration is mortification, recitation of texts, and resignation to the Lord" [ii. 1]. Yájñavalkya has described "mortification"--

"By the way prescribed in sacred rule, by the difficult chándráyana fast, &c.,

"Thus to dry up the body they call the highest of all mortifications."[429]

"Recitation of texts" is the repetition of the syllable Om, the _gáyatrí_, &c. Now these _mantras_ are of two kinds, Vaidik and Tántrik. The Vaidik are also of two kinds, those chanted and those not chanted. Those chanted are the _sámans_; those not chanted are either in metre, _i.e._, the _richas_, or in prose, _i.e._, the _yajúmshi_, as has been said by Jaimini,[430] "Of these, that is a _rich_ in which by the force of the sense there is a definite division into _pádas_ [or portions of a verse]; the name _sáman_ is applied to chanted portions; the word _yajus_ is applied to the rest." Those _mantras_ are called Tántrik which are set forth in sacred books that are directed to topics of voluntary devotion;[431] and these are again threefold, as female, male, and neuter; as it has been said--

"The _mantras_ are of three kinds, as female, male, and neuter:

"The female are those which end in the wife of fire (_i.e._, the exclamation _sváhá_); the neuter those which end in _namas_;

"The rest are male, and considered the best. They are all-powerful in mesmerising another's will, &c."

They are called "all-powerful" (_siddha_) because they counteract all defects in their performance, and produce their effect even when the ordinary consecrating ceremonies, as bathing, &c., have been omitted.

Now the peculiar "consecrating ceremonies" (_samskára_) are ten, and they have been thus described in the _Sáradá-tilaka_--

"There are said to be ten preliminary ceremonies which give to _mantras_ efficacy:

"These mantras are thus made complete; they are thoroughly consecrated.

"The 'begetting,' the 'vivifying,' the 'smiting,' the 'awakening,'

"The 'sprinkling,' the 'purifying,' the 'fattening,'

"The 'satisfying,' the 'illumining,' the 'concealing,'--these are the ten consecrations of _mantras_.

"The 'begetting' (_janana_) is the extracting of the _mantra_ from its vowels and consonants.

"The wise man should mutter the several letters of the _mantra_, each united to Om,