a consideration of the yoga sutras (1)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (2)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (3)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (4)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (5)
We might think that such words as bīja, jāpa, īśvara and praṇava are extremely meaningful here. That, to no small extent is correct. But the understanding of these words, especially in the context of the sutras previous and those to come is not the same understanding we have if the words are taken out of the context of the Yoga Sutras, the Yoga Darśhana.
We must understand these words in the context of the sutras as a whole. Hence, the very first sutra suggests that NOW the study can begin because all of the sutras have been seen in the light of one another, NOW, the whole that is greater than the parts must be studied. See "a consideration of the yoga sutras (1)".
Of all the significant words we might hit upon, it is most likely that praṇidhāna is the most noteworthy. The root of ṇidhā is dhā, “deposit”. It’s prefix, pra means “in front”, “before” or can also mean “fulfilling”. But in Sanskrit usage, ṇidhāna suggests “putting or laying down, depositing, keeping or preserving”.
praṇidhāna or submitting has a much more profound interpretation in the holistic sense of the sutras: a profound or abstract contemplation. Just how this profound or abstract contemplation is to be undertaken is the subject of the first three books or sections of the collection of sutras. To leap to the conclusion that īśvara-praṇidhāna is profound worship of “god” is to leap to a conclusion not part of the sutras.
Such a conclusion is, however, most certainly part of Mahesh’s thinking. In my notes is a statement he made about īśvara-praṇidhāna:
īśvara-praṇidhāna – GC begins; we know god, maintainer of universe; law of being ‘sold out’ to creation begins. Īśvara is governor, maintainer of universe. Two levels: maintainer of relative and of absolute. Praṇidhāna is completely opening one’s self to finest values of relative and absolute. This is the law that structures unity, YOGA; developing supremely celestial relative values and transcendent value.
We may teach that TM is not a religion, but most assuredly Mahesh is a religious thinker and a religious oriented teacher! No doubt, as was Guru Dev.
There is no science in what Mahesh has said here! Science is not in opposition to religion, science is simply a different language about the same thing.
Yet, I am wholly in agreement with Mahesh here; he has expressed exactly what the yoga sutras is all about! Except, he has done it in the language of religion and this language is simply NOT the language of the yoga sutras.
Patañjali and all of the editors and redactors who have left us these instructions called the yoga sutras, the Yoga Darśana, have not spoken in the language of religion but with the language of religion making one thing perfectly clear in sutra 2. This set of instructions is about MIND, citta. Īśvara, that-most-supreme-thing, is citta. It is obvious that all concepts of god can be dispensed with and life does not change. But one cannot dispense with mind. Lacking “god” in your world, your world goes on. Lacking “mind” you have no world.
(23) [yoga comes about] like this, contemplation of that-most-supreme-thing; (24) that-most-supreme-thing is beyond corruption; (25) that-most-supreme-thing is the source of awareness and omniscience [what can you know or do if you do not have mind]; (26) that-most-supreme-thing has always been there and was the teacher of the ancients; (27) that-most-supreme-thing is that ever-present reverberation [the reverberation of which we are subtly aware speaks of/for that-most-supreme-thing]; (28) by studying that-most-supreme-thing it becomes clear. Sutras 27 and 28 can also be understood as saying that since that-most-supreme-thing is always and ever-present, being aware of that “something” is what speaks for that-most-supreme-thing.
29: then we begin to “recognize” yoga and obstacles to yoga fall away … yoga is citta, that-most-supreme-thing, The suggestion in this section is that īśvara, that-most-supreme-thing, has never-not been present in our own lives and has extended to us from the same experience/awareness had by the ancients. The yoga sutras is about praṇidhāna, the work necessary to recognize that-most-supreme-thing so that the obstacles can fall away.
In a TM lecture once, I said that TM made everything easy. My example was: our lives were kind of like watching TV: eventually we began to feel the picture was not clear. So we call the repairman [obviously Mahesh in this case, working through us, the TM teachers]. The repairman examines the TV very carefully and explains that it is working properly and the station is sending out a strong signal.
What, what, we might exclaim! The picture is not good, any fool can see that.
So the repairman takes out a tissue and wipes away the dust from a tiny corner of the screen. Suddenly everything we must do is perfectly clear. His instructions “reverberate” with your understanding.
I am no longer sure it is such a good TM lecture.
But here, in this case the Repairman is Patañjali and the technique is not to worship the repairman or to worship the repairman’s calling card (that which speaks for or of that-most-supreme-thing) but to listen to the repairman who is telling us that the technique is to search out within our own sense of selves, that reverberation that was the teacher even of the ancients.
Reverberation is not some “vibration” that we can link to Mahesh’s vibration technology! It is not “OM” in this context or anything like it. That is simply NOT what Patañjali is teaching, nor is what Mahesh is teaching what Patañjali is teaching.
Here “reverberation” praṇava is used much in the same way a person might way that this or that political candidate reverberates with his or her own feelings about some issue. A particular fashion of dress reverberates with some and not others.
That which speaks of it (the repairman, Patañjali, all the legitimate gurus through time) is NOT the sacred syllable OM but rather that which reverberates with your own sense of what you are seeking, your own mind.
This is, of course, also the context of “know thyself” in the Western tradition.
Patañjali and the Yoga Darśana are teaching the HOW-TO of not only recognizing that reverberation, but how to merge, meld with that reverberation, how to contemplate one’s own mind so that obstacles to yoga will be no more, will fall away, will, as in sutra 2, nirodha.
Ways to begin weakening the grip of the obstacles, as well as beginning to recognize one’s own mind are expressed in sutras 30 through 41. Here fundamental or rudimentary ways of recognizing what mind is while simultaneously weakening the obstacles are outlined. Again, we notice that there is not one way for everyone, but many ways so that the individual may begin to recognize īśvara, that-most-supreme-thing, and get under way.
Sutras 30 through 41 and 42 through 51 can be much more clearly expressed once this section of discussion and the section before it (5) are taken out of the realm of religious thought and context or TM thinking and simply viewed as matter-of-fact statements about ordinary human life. The sutras or instructions of Patañjali are not religious or other-oriented. They are oriented toward the individual’s experience of his own most profound essence, realizing mind.
a consideration of the yoga sutras (7)
Friday, March 16, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Taking Responsibility vs. Moving On
We at TM-Free have been working on a big project this past week that we hope will bear global fruit soon. In the process of doing so, we have been in touch with a number of well-known voices from the history of the Transcendental Meditation Movement. Many are excited about our project -- and about TM-Free Blog itself.
But one by one, despite their initial excitement about getting involved, they have backed out.
This has got me to thinking about those who don't choose to come forward and tell what they know about the operations of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his TM Org -- as well as those who do.
Some are honestly triggered by recalling memories from their TM involvement. I certainly don't wish these people any more pain.
But there are so many who are not willing to take responsibility for their involvement in the Movement -- and the impact that it had on others' lives. They are filled with reasons. They feel they must protect the Maharishi. They don't want to cut ties to people they know and love. They experience embarrassment. They don't want their new lives compromised. They want to honor their special memories of a good time in their life. They are over all that now and have moved on. They don't want to violate the terms of an out-of-court settlement.
Whatever.
Relatively few take the steps that others feel are necessary: owning up to what happened, stopping our involvement, apologizing for what we did in the Maharishi's name, and making amends as far as we are able.
This post is a simple appreciation for those who have taken those hard steps. And risked reputation and career.
Some of their names are mentioned in posts here, such as the "Sexy Sadie File." Some do battle in their own ways on other forums, such as Yahoo Groups Fairfield Life. Many are listed in our links. Many more are not.
But the thousands who have gotten out of TM to lead their own lives owe them a debt of gratitude.
It's a spiritual work we do. Sans gurus and sutras.
J.
But one by one, despite their initial excitement about getting involved, they have backed out.
This has got me to thinking about those who don't choose to come forward and tell what they know about the operations of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his TM Org -- as well as those who do.
Some are honestly triggered by recalling memories from their TM involvement. I certainly don't wish these people any more pain.
But there are so many who are not willing to take responsibility for their involvement in the Movement -- and the impact that it had on others' lives. They are filled with reasons. They feel they must protect the Maharishi. They don't want to cut ties to people they know and love. They experience embarrassment. They don't want their new lives compromised. They want to honor their special memories of a good time in their life. They are over all that now and have moved on. They don't want to violate the terms of an out-of-court settlement.
Whatever.
Relatively few take the steps that others feel are necessary: owning up to what happened, stopping our involvement, apologizing for what we did in the Maharishi's name, and making amends as far as we are able.
This post is a simple appreciation for those who have taken those hard steps. And risked reputation and career.
Some of their names are mentioned in posts here, such as the "Sexy Sadie File." Some do battle in their own ways on other forums, such as Yahoo Groups Fairfield Life. Many are listed in our links. Many more are not.
But the thousands who have gotten out of TM to lead their own lives owe them a debt of gratitude.
It's a spiritual work we do. Sans gurus and sutras.
J.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
a consideration of the yoga sutras (5)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (1)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (2)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (3)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (4)
The YS isn't simple; it is complex and not written a language anything like English. So far, I hope, I have illustrated that this path to spiritual development, what else can it be called, isn't a simple natural process of paying money and being taught how to think a mantra. It should as well, be obvious that the YS does not suggest that it’s all going to be automatic and effortless on our part.
What is yoga?
Yoga is bringing the colourations/obscurations of the mind to naught (2). On a foggy day, the fog obscures your ability to see very far. Driving a car is risky. Even walking could end you up in a ditch! The fog is there, yet you cannot grab a handful. Most certainly, you have no power to make it go away. You are in it and yet it eludes your grasp.
This is vṛtti.
On its own, without some kind of intervention, things will remain just like this. Imagining you know where you are going, using reason to guide you in this fog, is unwise. But when the sun comes out, the fog gradually (slowly or rapidly) “comes to naught” (nirodha). The trees, lampposts, buildings and so forth appear. But they were never not there as far as the fog is concerned. They therefore do not appear; it is your perception that becomes un-obscured. The perception/mind (citta, sutra 2) is perfect and always present, of course, so nothing happens to it anymore than anything happens to reality when the fog is or is no more (nirodha).
In one simple sutra (2) Patanjali has laid it all out. Yoga is what you are; your mind is what you are; yoga and mind are synonymous. If there were no yoga, how could you be?
If the fog cleared and you found that you were in the middle of nothingness, where would you go to look for reality? How would you go about the business of just looking? But this situation cannot be because you and reality are inseparable. The arrangement and pattern we perceive in nature isn’t just there because it’s pretty. That we are able to perceive the organization of nature is what yoga (and the yoga sutras) is all about; this sense of sensing order in reality is the essential evidence leading us to be able to understand what governs the external reality and in this context it enables us to recognize how to penetrate that internal reality of citta, mind.
Yoga is what is.
The long explanations of what-is-to-be-understood is necessary, otherwise what Patanjali (as a person or as a series of editors) is explaining would be like using reason to guide you in a thick fog or smoke filled room, in a blizzard or dense forest.
Therefore the sutras from 3 through 22 help us understand what needs to be grasped before progress can be made.
Then comes the BUT [in the sense of: it is like this].
Sutra 23: [literally] īśvara-praṇidhāna + at (submission + -ing/out of submission [to]) it-is-like-this (vā also means ‘or’)
=> A note about Sanskrit: an ‘a’ (ending of one word) before a word beginning with ‘a’ means that the two a’s change to ‘ā’. The final ‘t’ of “at” changes to “ad” before ‘v’. Thus praṇidhāna + at (a suffix forming a present and future participle) changes to praṇidhānād (submitting). But, to complicate matters, an ‘a’ before an ‘ā’ changes a+ā to ‘ā’. So the suffix could be ‘āt’, the ablative form of a masculine or neuter word. But the meaning is the same “from (out of) (ablative) submission” so the sutra could be translated submitting [to] īśvara, it-is-like-this. In Sanskrit, ablative is not like ablative in Latin which gives the sense of ‘with’ or ‘by’. Ablative is more the sense of “coming from/coming out of” almost always translated with from.
So, what about īśvara – we all know it means god, right!
Not really. Just for starters the word īśvara can mean “god”, but it can also mean a powerful ruler, Self, able to do, capable of, liable, exposed to, master, lord, prince, king and so on including ātman and the idea of an eternal self.
This sutra functions much like sutra 20; see part 4.
To understand īśvara as Patanjali appears to intend it, we must look at the next sutra, 24: this īśvara is that distinctive purity of perception untroubled by the store of ripening intent (karma). This īśvara operates, or simply just is, whether there is fog/vṛtti/obscuration or whatnot. You might have done some good or bad things out of bad intent or good intent. That action (karma) will ripen (cause vṛtti in future) without having an effect on īśvara (that which empowers you, mind or mind-self). It was īśvara that was already being talked about in sutra 3 (when this is accomplished, realization has taken place; when this is accomplished, the one who sees is).
Your own perception can be likened to the sun. The sun shines and the fog is no more. Your own perception comes to fullness and that which obscured it is no more. Presto, chango, nirodha. Voilà. YOGA. Sounds simple enough, at least in the abstract. In striving to be free of vṛtti, however, it is something a little more challenging.
We can read 23, but [it-is-like-this] submitting to (or from/out of submission),[is] īśvara (our own power, your own mind, citta [grasped, known] and 24, this īśvara is that distinctive purity of perception untroubled by the store of ripening intent (karma).
25: when you know this, everything is possible.
As if!
It is not a simple matter, this “knowing”. There’s more to the word “know” here. Sarva is everything and jña is to-know, to-be-familiar-with and also means wise. The suffix tva adds the sense of “ness” as used in English. Yes, the sutra contains, as well, the word bīja, but it means “source”; it has nothing to do here with ‘seed mantras’.
So, 25: the source of this all-encompassing wisdom (perception [mind/yoga/reality] free of the obscuration of vṛtti,) [is] unsurpassed.
26: this īśvara was the ideal of the ancient ones. (Not some new invention or idea.)
27: tasya (tad + ya) ‘this’ + ‘to be’ or “thus it follows” [lit having become thus], vācak, the speaker [the one who gives expression to this], is praṇava.
Thus it follows, the one (that which) who expresses this, is praṇava. The one (that which) expresses this is not some leap into a dense-fog-guess like “oh, I know, the guru” (?), god (?), OM (?).
Think it through.
What is Patanjali talking about in sutras 23-26? He/we are talking about the human being having and being in possession of an innate perception, a reality of perception that is clouded over by vṛtti. This is a storehouse not only of karma, but of the conclusions we have drawn from a lifetime of experiences which clouds, measures, cramps, predicts, limits and otherwise colours and obscures our innate reality.
I see a connection here between vṛtti and karma. I think it’s worth exploring; but at this time I am going to pass on that.
When we are free from this “fog” of vṛtti, as Patanjali again and again drives home, we have perception that has no limitations. We are no longer limited by the fog of our own-created limitations. No matter what kinds of limitations we have, the reality is still there. The thicker the “fog” the harder the work to bring it to nirodha, sutras 21 and 22.
The ancients knew this; it is not something new.
Patanjali is telling us what the ancients knew, namely that this “reverberation” has always been there. This reverberation, something we have always sensed, has always been there and has always been pointing us towards this. AND has always been available to teach us.
Maybe you were thinking that praṇava (reverberation) was om and by muttering om, everything was going to just be dandy.
Not likely.
If it was that easy, then the world wouldn’t be in such a mess. If it was that easy, why, you might consider asking yourself, would Patanjali go to all the bother of such a lengthy explanation if he could have just written “mutter om and everything will be nice”. Why would he do that?
Mahesh did this very thing, more or less; how nice is everything?
So, praṇava is a way of indicating that faint, distant itch on the tip of your tongue, in the back of your mind, that pestering sense of something that has always been there but has more or less been forgotten in the process of getting on with your life and creating more and more karma and vṛtti.
26: this great power was the ideal or teacher of the ancient ones.
27: it is that reverberation that is always present.
To this point the YS illustrates the hard work to be faced (thus explaining the mess, because who does hard work). It’s just our nature to look for something easy, a shortcut, something instant – or to imagine we can see/reason our way through the fog.
Few are those with dedication, commitment and purpose-driven desire for awakening from the fog.
28: jāpa repetition. But one of the oldest meanings of jāpa is study, not just simple repetition – and yet the connection is obvious, the meaning is clear: by jāpa, by studying, going over it (3-27) again and again until the message sinks in, tadartha (therefore) bhāvanam [it] comes [to be/is]. Union, knowing, realization of one’s own mind is what comes to be.
This just isn’t a description of Mahesh’s TM. Mental repetition of a bīja, a mantra, the special name of some god simply isn’t the issue, subject or teaching here.
This section extends to sutra 33; but I am going to stop here because this is a lot to digest. We have to go back to sutra 23 now and re-consider the word submit. We have to understand how “submission” operates. The word praṇidhāna indicates profound religious meditation, abstract contemplation and profound aspiration. But, it now seems, in the context of 23, the context of this section, in light of sutras 2 –22, what we have to do is sincerely, energetically and purposefully contemplate our own minds (reality) until the “fog” begins to clear. As it does, the object, the mind/reality (citta, sutra 2), becomes clearer. No magic mantra, meaningless sound to take us skidding off into dissociative states of muzzy awareness and meaningless daydreaming; increased meaninglessness is increased vṛiti!
(to continue in part 6).
Just a parting question to consider before launching into the how of “submit”: if you muttered the special name of a god, why would the god give a tinker’s fart? What kind of a “god” is under ‘your’ control that you can have such expectations of getting his or her blessings by being, basically, a pain in the butt?
a consideration of the yoga sutras (6)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (2)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (3)
a consideration of the yoga sutras (4)
The YS isn't simple; it is complex and not written a language anything like English. So far, I hope, I have illustrated that this path to spiritual development, what else can it be called, isn't a simple natural process of paying money and being taught how to think a mantra. It should as well, be obvious that the YS does not suggest that it’s all going to be automatic and effortless on our part.
What is yoga?
Yoga is bringing the colourations/obscurations of the mind to naught (2). On a foggy day, the fog obscures your ability to see very far. Driving a car is risky. Even walking could end you up in a ditch! The fog is there, yet you cannot grab a handful. Most certainly, you have no power to make it go away. You are in it and yet it eludes your grasp.
This is vṛtti.
On its own, without some kind of intervention, things will remain just like this. Imagining you know where you are going, using reason to guide you in this fog, is unwise. But when the sun comes out, the fog gradually (slowly or rapidly) “comes to naught” (nirodha). The trees, lampposts, buildings and so forth appear. But they were never not there as far as the fog is concerned. They therefore do not appear; it is your perception that becomes un-obscured. The perception/mind (citta, sutra 2) is perfect and always present, of course, so nothing happens to it anymore than anything happens to reality when the fog is or is no more (nirodha).
In one simple sutra (2) Patanjali has laid it all out. Yoga is what you are; your mind is what you are; yoga and mind are synonymous. If there were no yoga, how could you be?
If the fog cleared and you found that you were in the middle of nothingness, where would you go to look for reality? How would you go about the business of just looking? But this situation cannot be because you and reality are inseparable. The arrangement and pattern we perceive in nature isn’t just there because it’s pretty. That we are able to perceive the organization of nature is what yoga (and the yoga sutras) is all about; this sense of sensing order in reality is the essential evidence leading us to be able to understand what governs the external reality and in this context it enables us to recognize how to penetrate that internal reality of citta, mind.
Yoga is what is.
The long explanations of what-is-to-be-understood is necessary, otherwise what Patanjali (as a person or as a series of editors) is explaining would be like using reason to guide you in a thick fog or smoke filled room, in a blizzard or dense forest.
Therefore the sutras from 3 through 22 help us understand what needs to be grasped before progress can be made.
Then comes the BUT [in the sense of: it is like this].
Sutra 23: [literally] īśvara-praṇidhāna + at (submission + -ing/out of submission [to]) it-is-like-this (vā also means ‘or’)
=> A note about Sanskrit: an ‘a’ (ending of one word) before a word beginning with ‘a’ means that the two a’s change to ‘ā’. The final ‘t’ of “at” changes to “ad” before ‘v’. Thus praṇidhāna + at (a suffix forming a present and future participle) changes to praṇidhānād (submitting). But, to complicate matters, an ‘a’ before an ‘ā’ changes a+ā to ‘ā’. So the suffix could be ‘āt’, the ablative form of a masculine or neuter word. But the meaning is the same “from (out of) (ablative) submission” so the sutra could be translated submitting [to] īśvara, it-is-like-this. In Sanskrit, ablative is not like ablative in Latin which gives the sense of ‘with’ or ‘by’. Ablative is more the sense of “coming from/coming out of” almost always translated with from.
So, what about īśvara – we all know it means god, right!
Not really. Just for starters the word īśvara can mean “god”, but it can also mean a powerful ruler, Self, able to do, capable of, liable, exposed to, master, lord, prince, king and so on including ātman and the idea of an eternal self.
This sutra functions much like sutra 20; see part 4.
To understand īśvara as Patanjali appears to intend it, we must look at the next sutra, 24: this īśvara is that distinctive purity of perception untroubled by the store of ripening intent (karma). This īśvara operates, or simply just is, whether there is fog/vṛtti/obscuration or whatnot. You might have done some good or bad things out of bad intent or good intent. That action (karma) will ripen (cause vṛtti in future) without having an effect on īśvara (that which empowers you, mind or mind-self). It was īśvara that was already being talked about in sutra 3 (when this is accomplished, realization has taken place; when this is accomplished, the one who sees is).
Your own perception can be likened to the sun. The sun shines and the fog is no more. Your own perception comes to fullness and that which obscured it is no more. Presto, chango, nirodha. Voilà. YOGA. Sounds simple enough, at least in the abstract. In striving to be free of vṛtti, however, it is something a little more challenging.
We can read 23, but [it-is-like-this] submitting to (or from/out of submission),[is] īśvara (our own power, your own mind, citta [grasped, known] and 24, this īśvara is that distinctive purity of perception untroubled by the store of ripening intent (karma).
25: when you know this, everything is possible.
As if!
It is not a simple matter, this “knowing”. There’s more to the word “know” here. Sarva is everything and jña is to-know, to-be-familiar-with and also means wise. The suffix tva adds the sense of “ness” as used in English. Yes, the sutra contains, as well, the word bīja, but it means “source”; it has nothing to do here with ‘seed mantras’.
So, 25: the source of this all-encompassing wisdom (perception [mind/yoga/reality] free of the obscuration of vṛtti,) [is] unsurpassed.
26: this īśvara was the ideal of the ancient ones. (Not some new invention or idea.)
27: tasya (tad + ya) ‘this’ + ‘to be’ or “thus it follows” [lit having become thus], vācak, the speaker [the one who gives expression to this], is praṇava.
Thus it follows, the one (that which) who expresses this, is praṇava. The one (that which) expresses this is not some leap into a dense-fog-guess like “oh, I know, the guru” (?), god (?), OM (?).
Think it through.
What is Patanjali talking about in sutras 23-26? He/we are talking about the human being having and being in possession of an innate perception, a reality of perception that is clouded over by vṛtti. This is a storehouse not only of karma, but of the conclusions we have drawn from a lifetime of experiences which clouds, measures, cramps, predicts, limits and otherwise colours and obscures our innate reality.
I see a connection here between vṛtti and karma. I think it’s worth exploring; but at this time I am going to pass on that.
When we are free from this “fog” of vṛtti, as Patanjali again and again drives home, we have perception that has no limitations. We are no longer limited by the fog of our own-created limitations. No matter what kinds of limitations we have, the reality is still there. The thicker the “fog” the harder the work to bring it to nirodha, sutras 21 and 22.
The ancients knew this; it is not something new.
Patanjali is telling us what the ancients knew, namely that this “reverberation” has always been there. This reverberation, something we have always sensed, has always been there and has always been pointing us towards this. AND has always been available to teach us.
Maybe you were thinking that praṇava (reverberation) was om and by muttering om, everything was going to just be dandy.
Not likely.
If it was that easy, then the world wouldn’t be in such a mess. If it was that easy, why, you might consider asking yourself, would Patanjali go to all the bother of such a lengthy explanation if he could have just written “mutter om and everything will be nice”. Why would he do that?
Mahesh did this very thing, more or less; how nice is everything?
So, praṇava is a way of indicating that faint, distant itch on the tip of your tongue, in the back of your mind, that pestering sense of something that has always been there but has more or less been forgotten in the process of getting on with your life and creating more and more karma and vṛtti.
26: this great power was the ideal or teacher of the ancient ones.
27: it is that reverberation that is always present.
To this point the YS illustrates the hard work to be faced (thus explaining the mess, because who does hard work). It’s just our nature to look for something easy, a shortcut, something instant – or to imagine we can see/reason our way through the fog.
Few are those with dedication, commitment and purpose-driven desire for awakening from the fog.
28: jāpa repetition. But one of the oldest meanings of jāpa is study, not just simple repetition – and yet the connection is obvious, the meaning is clear: by jāpa, by studying, going over it (3-27) again and again until the message sinks in, tadartha (therefore) bhāvanam [it] comes [to be/is]. Union, knowing, realization of one’s own mind is what comes to be.
This just isn’t a description of Mahesh’s TM. Mental repetition of a bīja, a mantra, the special name of some god simply isn’t the issue, subject or teaching here.
This section extends to sutra 33; but I am going to stop here because this is a lot to digest. We have to go back to sutra 23 now and re-consider the word submit. We have to understand how “submission” operates. The word praṇidhāna indicates profound religious meditation, abstract contemplation and profound aspiration. But, it now seems, in the context of 23, the context of this section, in light of sutras 2 –22, what we have to do is sincerely, energetically and purposefully contemplate our own minds (reality) until the “fog” begins to clear. As it does, the object, the mind/reality (citta, sutra 2), becomes clearer. No magic mantra, meaningless sound to take us skidding off into dissociative states of muzzy awareness and meaningless daydreaming; increased meaninglessness is increased vṛiti!
(to continue in part 6).
Just a parting question to consider before launching into the how of “submit”: if you muttered the special name of a god, why would the god give a tinker’s fart? What kind of a “god” is under ‘your’ control that you can have such expectations of getting his or her blessings by being, basically, a pain in the butt?
a consideration of the yoga sutras (6)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)