I have been thinking about III 32 in Mahesh’s (most likely
Vernon Katz’) translation of the yoga sūtras
- by saṃyama
on the light in the head, vision of the siddhas is gained.
For the past 30 years I have known a different understanding
of this sūtra, perhaps key to the whole yoga sūtra, “sidhi” conundrum. I have
been thinking I might write about it for TM-Free, but I hae me
douts that this could be of any interest. Today, I decided to take the
leap anyway.
The Sanskrit Scholar, Arthur A. Macdonell, put Patañjali, the compiler of the yoga sūtra anthology, in the 2nd
century BCE. This would be at least 300 years after the Buddha. Personally, it
has always seemed to me that the Brāhmaṇical revival of the
8th or 9th century CE (whenever the time of Śaṅkara
is thought to have lived), attempted to incorporate Buddhist ideas and make
them seem Brāhmaṇical. Not
altogether unlike the early Christians who kept the Egyptian, Roman and Greek
(as well as Persian) myths and just called it Christian (i.e.
same old stuff you love, just new names to make you feel special).
This is not necessarily a problem in that the Buddha never
claimed he owned or possessed his teachings; he didn’t copyright them,
trademark them, restrict them or charge money for them. He widely and
consistently proclaimed that they were for the benefit of everyone.
Hence, we see a lot of Buddhist ideas in the yoga sūtras and
this number will vary depending upon which version of the yoga sūtras one gets
hold of … there are 4 versions, but the only difference is that two of the
sūtras which are commentarial in nature are either both included, neither is
included or one or the other is included … both of these are in the 3rd
section, the “siddhi” section. Here, versions should not be
confused with translations. Sūtra III 32 or whatever its number is in whatever
version you have to hand, is usually translated more or less as Vernon has
done. There are lots of variations, but they seem to say the same thing. This,
I think is a trick of the grammar. The point at which Mahesh could have turned
TM into something of monumental importance for everyone rather than turning it
into a circus of never-ending futility, a constant bazaar of things to buy hopelessly trying to make it work. I question his
competence to teach, but it would be dangerous to underestimate his mastery of
great depth when it comes to skilfully wielding the carrot-on-the-stick.
