Now, the teachings of yoga [are presented].

Bryant Commentary:

It is common for authors of philosophical works to commence their treatises by announcing the specific nature of their subject matter, thereby indicating how their undertakings are to be distinguished from other strains of philosophical thought or knowledge systems. Thus, while from the six classical schools of Hindu philosophy3 the followers of the Vedānta school see their tradition as explaining the nature of the absolute Truth (Brahman), and the followers of the Vaiśeṣika and Mīmāṁsā schools as explaining the nature of dharma, duty, and these respective points of focus are announced in the first sūtras of the primary texts associated with those schools, the Yoga school is interested in the subject of yoga. Patañjali accordingly uses the first sūtra of his text to announce the topic of his teachings: The primary subject matter of his text differs from that of other systems insofar as his work will be about yoga.

It is also standard in the commentarial literature, as will become apparent throughout this work, for the later commentators to analyze each word in every sūtra (as discussed in the introduction, sūtra means aphorism or extremely succinct verse), and words are analyzed in various ways—etymologically, semantically, contextually, philosophically, etc. Commentaries thus unpack the meaning of words, both individually and collectively, in the sūtras of primary texts. Vyāsa, Vācaspati Miśra, Vijñānabhikṣu, Saṅkara, Bhoja Rāja, Rāmānanda Sarasvatī, and Hariharānanda Araṇya are, in chronological order, the main commentators recognized as the most important of the premodern period and their interpretations form the basis of the present commentary.

Accordingly, the first word in this sūtra, and thus of the entire Yoga Sūtras, is atha, now, that is, in the present work Patañjali is about to deliver, demarking these teachings from those in other texts (the word also initiates the opening sūtras of other philosophical works). As will be seen below with Vijñānabhikṣu’s comments, the word atha is also sometimes read as differentiating the text in question from other texts in a hierarchical or sectarian fashion, as indicating that when one has exhausted dabbling with other philosophical or religious systems as represented in other texts, one has now finally come to the summum bonum of Truth, namely, that represented by the text in question. The commentators add, as an aside, that the word atha is deemed somewhat sacred and thus also functions as an auspicious opening to the text.

Vyāsa, the primary and most important commentator (whose commentary is almost as canonical as Patañjali’s primary text), then proceeds to discuss yoga, the second word in this sūtra. In accordance with the famous Sanskrit grammarian Pāṇini, he glosses yoga with samādhi, the ultimate subject matter of the Yoga Sūtras. Samādhi consists of various contemplative stages of mental concentration that will be described in detail throughout the text. Indeed, the commentator Vācaspati Miśra traces the etymology of yoga to one of the meanings of the root yuj, to contemplate, which, he points out, is the correct etymology here. The more established etymology from the perspective of modern historical linguistics is, of course, derived from the same Indo-European root as the English word “yoke.”9 Yoga can thus mean that which joins, that is, unites one with the Absolute Truth, and while this translation of the term is popularly found (and may be apt in other contexts, such as the Gītā, IX.3410), it is best avoided in the context of the Yoga Sūtras, since, as was pointed out over a hundred years ago by the famous Indologist Max Müller (1899, 309ff) (and long before that, by the sixteenth-century Indian doxographer Mādhava11) the goal of yoga is not to join, but the opposite: to unjoin, that is, to disconnect puruṣa from prakṛti. If the term is to mean “yoke,” it entails yoking the mind on an object of concentration without deviation.

Elaborating on this, Vyāsa notes that when the mind is directed toward an object, it can manifest five different degrees of focus (bhūmis): wondering, confused, distracted, concentrated, and restrained. It is the last two that are of interest to Yoga: when the mind, citta, is restrained and concentrated, or fixed on one point, a type of samādhi known as samprajñāta can be attained. Samprajñāta–samādhi entails concentrating the mind in various degrees upon an object of concentration (all of which will be discussed at length below). Vyāsa also introduces the notion of asamprajñāta–samādhi in these opening comments. This is the seventh and ultimate level of samādhi, when all activities of the mind have been fully restrained—including those involved in samprajñāta–samādhi of one-pointed concentration on an object. Since asamprajñāta–samādhi will also be discussed at length in the text, we will simply note here that in this state, pure objectless consciousness alone remains, that is, self-contained consciousness conscious only of its own internal nature of pure consciousness rather than of any external object. Vyāsa thus provides a minipreview of the subject matter of the Yoga Sūtras in his opening comments.

Vyāsa makes a point of noting that a distracted mind, the third on his list of states, is not to be confounded with yoga. Vācaspati Miśra elaborates that while it is obvious that the other two states of mind, wondering and forgetfulness,15 are not yoga, a distracted state of mind may appear to be so because it is periodically fixed. However, since such steadiness soon relapses into wondering and forgetfulness, it cannot be considered real yoga. Only the fully concentrated or one-pointed state of mind is yoga.

Vācaspati Miśra notes that the third and final term from this sūtra, anu-śāsanam, strictly speaking means further teaching.16 He points out that the Yājñavalkya Smṛti states that a sage known as Hiraṇyagarbha was the original teacher of yoga. Hence Patañjali is using the prefix anu-, which indicates the continuation of the activity denoted by the noun to which it is prefixed, in this case, śāsanam, teachings. The Mahābhārata also identifies Hiraṇyagarbha as the founder of Yoga (XII.326.65; 337.60). In the Purāṇic tradition (e.g., Bhāgavata Purāṇa, X.71.8), Hiraṇyagarbha is considered to be an epithet of Brahmā, the celestial being responsible for engineering the forms in the universe. In Purāṇic lore—for example, Bhāgavata Purāṇa, which is quoted frequently herein (III.8)—Hiraṇyagarbha is born on a lotus emanating from the navel of Viṣṇu, the supreme Godhead, who is reclining on the divine serpent Śeṣa on the cosmic waters pervading the entire universe prior to creation.

(As an aside, Patañjali himself is considered an incarnation of Śeṣa; see commentary in II.47.) Awakening to consciousness atop the lotus, Hiraṇyagarbha has no means of knowing who he is, or what is the source of the lotus or the all-expansive waters, indeed, no means of discerning or knowing anything at all. Confused and disoriented, he stills his mind (in accordance with the next verse), and enters into the ultimate state of yoga (samādhi), as a result of which he is granted a divine vision of Lord Viṣṇu. Hiraṇyagarbha is thus the first yogī in primordial times, and deemed to have written the original treatise on the subject.

Although mentioned in various texts, the Hiraṇyagarbha treatise is no longer extant, but information about its twelvefold content, all overlapping with the material found in Patañjali’s sūtras,17 is preserved in the Vaiṣṇava text the Ahirbudhnya Saṁhitā.18 Indeed, the information provided in this text suggests that Patañjali has, indeed, preserved the ancient formulation of the original philosophy ascribed to Hiraṇyagarbha, rather than patching together some innovative Yogic collage.19 Elsewhere, Vyāsa also refers to the teachings of one Jaigīṣavya as a forerunner of Yoga (II.55). Mādhava in his sixteenth-century doxography (compendium of philosophical schools) states that Patañjali, out of kindness, seeing how difficult it was to make sense of all the different types of yoga scattered throughout the Purāṇas, collected their “essences” (111). Patañjali is not the founder of the practice of yoga, which, Vācaspati Miśra stresses, is an ancient practice that preceded even Patañjali. Thus, by using the prefix anu, Patañjali himself implies that he has articulated and systematized a method from preexisting sets of teachings. His opening sūtra, atha yogānuśāsanam, thus informs the reader about the subject matter of the text.

Although Yoga becomes one of six schools of orthodox Hindu thought, its adherents naturally consider it to supersede the other schools. Vijñānabhikṣu, the most philosophical of the commentators, quotes a number of scriptural passages that point to the supremacy of yoga. For example, Kṛṣṇa, in the Bhagavad Gītā (which Vijñānabhikṣu quotes frequently) states, “The yogī is higher than the ascetic, and also considered higher than the jñānī, one who pursues knowledge. The yogī is higher still than the karmī, one who performs action; therefore, Arjuna, become a yogī” (VI.46). Just as all rivers such as the Gaṅgā are present as parts of the ocean, says Vijñānabhikṣu, so all other schools of thought are fully represented as parts of Yoga. While he allows that one can certainly obtain genuine knowledge from these other schools, all knowledge is, by its very nature, a faculty of the intellect, buddhi; it is not a faculty of the soul proper.

Sectarianism apart, it is perhaps useful to consider the argument so as to establish a preliminary understanding of the mind and intellect from Yoga perspectives. All aspects of mind, intellect, and cognition in Yoga psychology are external to or distinct from the true self, or soul. As will become clearer, the soul, which is pure consciousness, is autonomous and separable from the mind, and lies behind and beyond all forms of thought.

“It is essential to fully grasp this fundamental point in order to understand the Yoga system. Just as in most religious systems the body is commonly accepted to be extraneous to and separable from some notion of a soul or life force, and discarded at death, so (in contrast to certain major strains of Western thought), according to the Yoga system (and Hindu thought in general), the mind is also held to be extraneous to and separable from the soul (although it is discarded not at death but only upon attaining liberation). The soul is enveloped in two external and separable bodies in Yoga metaphysics: the gross material body consisting of the senses, and the subtle body consisting of the mind, intellect, ego, and other subtle aspects of the persona. At death, the soul discards the gross body (which returns to the material elements, to “dust”) but remains encapsulated in the subtle body, which is retained from life to life, and eventually attains a new gross body, in accordance with natural laws (karma, etc.). In order to be liberated from this cycle of repeated birth and death (termed saṁsāra in ancient Indian thought), the soul has to be uncoupled from not just the gross body but the subtle body of the citta as well. The process of yoga is directed toward this end. For our present purposes, then, in contrast to the Cartesian model, knowledge, as a feature of the intellect, or the discriminatory aspect of the mind, is extraneous to the pure self and thus not the ultimate aspect of being. 

The point here is that while knowledge is initially essential in leading the yogī practitioner through the various levels of samādhi, concentrative states, it is only through yoga, for Vijñānabhikṣu, that one can transcend the very intellect itself and thus the base of knowledge, to arrive at puruṣa, the ultimate state of pure, unconditioned awareness. From this perspective, Yoga is therefore superior to other schools of thought that occupy themselves with knowledge and thus remain connected to the material intellect. Just as a person with a torch in hand gives up the torch upon finding treasure, says Vijñānabhikṣu, so, eventually, the intellect, and the knowledge that it presents, also become redundant upon attaining the ultimate source of truth, puruṣa, the soul and innermost self. The self is pure subjectivity23 and transcends all knowledge, which is of the nature of objectivity: One knows, that is, one is aware or conscious of, something, hence some other object distinct from the knower or

 Now Then Yoga Is Being Explained.

Now, the teachings of yoga.

With great respect and love, now the blessings of Yoga instruction are offered.

Now, an exposition of Yoga (is to be made)..

Taimini Commentary:

Generally, a treatise of this nature in Samskrta begins with a Sutra which gives an idea with regard to the nature of the undertaking. The present treatise is an ‘exposition’ of Yoga. The author does not claim to be the discoverer of this Science but merely an expounder who has tried to condense in a few Sutras all the essential knowledge concerning the Science which a student or aspirant ought to possess. Very little is known about Patanjali. Although we have no information about him which can be called definitely historical, still according to occult tradition he was the same person who was known as Govinda Yogi and who initiated Samkaracarya in the Science of Yoga. From the masterly manner in which he has expounded the subject of Yoga in the Yoga-Sutras it is obvious that he was a Yogi of a very high order who had personal knowledge of all aspects of Yoga including its practical technique.

As the method of expounding a subject in the form of Sutras is peculiar and generally unfamiliar to Western students having no knowledge of the Samskrta language, it would perhaps not be out of place to say here a few words on this classical method which was adopted by the ancient Sages and scholars in their exposition of some of the most important subjects. The word Sutram in Samskrta means a thread and this primary meaning has given rise to the secondary meaning of Sutram as an aphorism. Just as a thread binds together a number of beads in a rosary, in the same way the underlying continuity of idea binds together in outline the essential aspects of a subject. The most important characteristics of this method are utmost condensation consistent with clear exposition of all essential aspects and continuity of the underlying theme in spite of the apparent discontinuity of the ideas presented. The latter characteristic is worth noting because the effort to discover the hidden ‘thread’ of reasoning beneath the apparently unconnected ideas very often provides the clue to the meaning of many Sutras. It should be remembered that this method of exposition was prevalent at a time when printing was unknown and most of the important treatises had to be memorized by the student. Hence the necessity of condensation to the utmost limit. Nothing essential was, of course, left out but everything with which the student was expected to be familiar or which he could easily infer from the context was ruthlessly cut out. 

The student will find on careful study what a tremendous amount of theoretical and practical knowledge the author has managed to incorporate in this very small treatise. Everything necessary for the proper understanding of the subject has been given at one place or another in a skeleton form. But the body of the requisite knowledge has to be dug out, prepared properly, chewed and digested before the subject can be understood thoroughly in its entirety. The Sutra method of exposition may appear to the modern student needlessly obscure and difficult but if he goes through the labour required for the mastery of the subject he will realize its superiority to the all too easy modern methods of presentation. The necessity of struggling with the words and ideas and digging out their hidden meanings ensures a very thorough assimilation of knowledge and develops simultaneously the powers and faculties of the mind, especially that important and indispensable capacity of digging out of one’s own mind the knowledge which lies buried in its deeper recesses.

But while this method of exposition is very effective it has its drawbacks also. The chief disadvantage is the difficulty which the ordinary student who is not thoroughly conversant with the subject has in finding the correct meaning. Not only is he likely to find many Sutras difficult to understand on account of their brevity but he may completely misunderstand some of them and be led astray in a hopeless manner. We have to remember that in a treatise like the Yoga-Sutras, behind many a word there is a whole pattern of thought of which the word is a mere symbol. To understand the true significance of the Sutras we must be thoroughly familiar with these patterns. The difficulty is increased still further when the words have to be translated into another language which does not contain exactly equivalent words.

Those who wrote these treatises were master-minds, masters of the subject and language they dealt with. There could be no fault in their method of presentation. But in the course of time fundamental changes can sometimes be brought about in the meaning of words and the thought patterns of those who study these treatises. And this fact introduces endless possibilities of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of some of the Sutras. In treatises of a purely philosophical or religious nature such a misunderstanding would perhaps not matter so much, but in one of a highly technical and practical nature like the Yoga-Sutras it can lead to great complications and even to dangers of a serious nature.

Luckily for the earnest student, Yoga has always been a living Science in the East and it has had an unbroken succession of living experts who continually verify by their own experiments and experiences the basic truths of this Science. This has helped not only to keep the traditions of Yogic culture alive and pure but to maintain the meanings of the technical words used in this Science in a fairly exact and clearly defined form. It is only when a Science is divorced completely from its practical application that it tends to lose itself in a morass of words which have lost their meaning and relation with the actual facts.

While the method of presenting a subject in the form of Sutras is eminently suited for the practical and advanced student it can hardly be denied that it does not quite fit in with our modern conditions. In the olden days those who studied these Sutras had easy access to the teachers of the Science who elaborated the knowledge embodied in a condensed form, filled up the gaps and gave practical guidance. And these students had leisure in which to think, meditate and dig out the meanings for themselves. The modern student who is interested merely in the theoretical study of the Yogic philosophy and is not practising it under an expert teacher has none of these facilities and needs an elaborate and clear exposition for an adequate understanding of the subject. He needs a commentary which not only aims at explaining the obvious meaning but also the hidden significance of the words and phrases used in terms of the concepts with which he is familiar and can easily understand. He wants his food not in ‘tabloid’ form but in bulk, and if possible, in a palatable form.

With prayers for divine blessings, now begins an exposition of the sacred art of yoga.

Iyengar Commentary:

Now follows a detailed exposition of the discipline of yoga, given step by step in the right order, and with proper direction for self-alignment.

Patañjali is the first to offer us a codification of yoga, its practice and precepts, and the immediacy of the new light he is shedding on a known and ancient subject is emphasized his use of the word ‘now’. His reappraisal, based on his own experience, explores fresh ground, and bequeathes us a lasting, monumental work. In the cultural context of his time his words must have been crystal clear, and even to the spiritually impoverished modern mind they are never confused, although they are often almost impenetrably condensed.

The word ‘now’ can also be seen in the context of a progression from Patañjali’s previous works, his treatises on grammar and on ayurveda. Logically we must consider these to predate the Yoga Sutras, as grammar is a prerequisite of lucid speech and clear comprehension, and ayurvedic medicine of bodily cleanliness and inner equilibrium. Together, these works served as preparation for Patañjali’s crowning exposition of yoga: the cultivation and eventual transcendence of consciousness, culminating in liberation from the cycles of rebirth.

These works are collectively known as moksa sastras (spiritual sciences), treatises which trace man’s evolution from physical and mental bondage towards ultimate freedom. The treatise on yoga flows naturally from the ayurvedic work, and guides the aspirant (sadhaka) to a trained and balanced state of consciousness.

In this first chapter Patañjali analyses the components of consciousness and its behavioural patterns, and explains how its fluctuations can be stilled in order to achieve inner absorption and integration. In the second, he reveals the whole linking mechanism of yoga, by means of which ethical conduct, bodily vigour and health and physiological vitality are built into the structure of the human evolutionary progress towards freedom. In the third chapter, Patañjali prepares the mind to reach the soul. In the fourth, he shows how the mind dissolves into the consciousness and consciousness into the soul, and how the sadhaka drinks the nectar of immortality.

The Brahma Sutra, a treatise dealing with Vedanta philosophy (the knowledge of Brahman), also begins with the word atha or ‘now’: athato Brahma jijñasa. There, ‘now’ stands for the desire to know Brahman. Brahman is dealt with as the object of study and is discussed and explored throughout as the object. In the Yoga Sutras, it is the seer or the true Self who is to be discovered and known. Yoga is therefore considered to be a subjective art, science and philosophy. ‘Yoga’ has various connotations as mentioned at the outset, but here it stands for samadhi, the indivisible state of existence.

So, this sutra may be taken to mean: ‘the disciplines of integration are here expounded through experience, and are given to humanity for the exploration and recognition of that hidden part of man which is beyond the awareness of the senses.

Now the exposition of Yoga is being made.

Satchidananda Commentary:

Anuśāsanam means exposition or instruction because it is not mere philosophy that Patañjali is about to expound but rather direct instruction on how to practice Yoga. Mere philosophy will not satisfy us. We cannot reach the goal by mere words alone. Without practice, nothing can be achieved.

Now concentration is explained.

“Now,” — This word here denotes undertaking. A text giving a revised critical teaching of Yoga is to be understood as having been undertaken.

Yoga is contemplation (Samadhi, trance), and it is a characteristic of the mind pervading all its planes. The planes of the mind are : —

Wandering (Ksipta) ; Forgetful (Mudha) ; Occasionally steady or distracted (Viksipta) ; One-pointed (Ekagra) ; and Restrained (Niruddha).

Of these the contemplation in the occasionally steady mind does not fall under the heading of Yoga, because of unsteadiness appearing in close sequence. That however, which in the one-pointed mind, fully shows forth an object existing as such in its most perfect form, removes the afflictions, loosens the bonds of karma and thus inclines it towards restraint, is said to be the Cognitive Trance <f?ainprajh6ta Samfidhi). And we shall explain further that this is accompanied by philosophical curiosity (vitarka), meditation (vichara), bliss (Amanda), and egoism (asmita).

When however all the modifications come under restraint, the trance is ultra-cognitive (Asamprajnata Samadhi).

~ Rāma Prasāda translation.

Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa
or the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa
by Śaṅkara

Patañjali Sūtra I.1

In whom are neither karma nor its fruition but from whom they come about,
Whom the taints of humanity can never withstand nor touch,
Whom the eye of Time that reckons all cannot encompass,
That Lord of the world, slayer of the demon Kaiṭabha – to him I bow.

Who is omniscient, all-glorious and all-powerful,
Who is without taint, and who requites actions with their fruits,
The Lord who is the cause of the rise, end, and maintenance of every thing,
To him, that teacher even of teachers, be this bow.

A sub-commentary is here begun on the yoga classic of Patañjali, from its first word Now.

No one will follow through the practices and restrictions of yoga unless the goal and the related means to it have been clearly set out, and the commentator first explains what they were in the mind of the sūtra author, so that people may be led to practise.

First as to the goal. A clarifying illustration is given from medicine. In classics of medicine, the exposition is under four heads: illness, cause of the illness, the healthy condition, the remedy. Medical science further explains these things in terms of prescriptions and restrictions.

So it is in yoga also. The sūtra (II.15) Because of the sufferings caused by changes and anxieties and the saṃskāra-s (dynamic latent impressions) of them, and from the clash of the guṇa-s, to the clear-sighted everything is pain alone corresponds to the first head (diagnosis of illness).

The parallel four-fold division of this work on yoga is as follows: what is to be escaped (= the illness) is saṃsāra full of pain; its cause is the conjunction of Seer and seen, caused by Ignorance (avidyā); the means of release is an unwavering (aviplava) Knowledge that they are different. When that Knowledge-of-the-difference (viveka-khyāti) appears, Ignorance ceases; when Ignorance ceases, there is a complete end to conjunction of Seer and seen, and this is the release called kaivalya. Kaivalya (Transcendental Aloneness) here corresponds to the condition of health, and so it is release which is the goal.

(Opponent) What-is-to-be-escaped, and its cause, should not have been brought in: it is pointless to do so. The work is concerned with release, and it is only the means to that, namely Knowledge, which needs to be mentioned. When a thorn has pierced the sole of the foot, one should not busy oneself with questions of pain and what causes it, instead of getting it out.

(Answer) Not so: the means of release depends on what it is that is to be escaped from, and what is its cause. Without explaining both this wheel of saṃsāra which is to be escaped by that means, and also its cause, namely the conjunction of Seer and seen caused by Ignorance, one cannot explain the discriminative Knowledge which cancels Ignorance. In the one who is suffering from what-is-to-be-escaped and its cause, and looking for a means of release, we see a sick man searching for a remedy. And medical science is not taught without reference to particular illnesses and their causes.

Now the relation of the means to the goal. The desired end of Knowledge-of-the-difference (of Seer-seen) is release, and Knowledge is the sole means to release. The mutual relation between them is one of means and end exclusively. The medical parallel is: health alone is the desired end of the remedy, and the remedy is the sole means to health. This is the exclusive mutual relation between the two in medicine, as shown in its classics. Thus the exposition of yoga too includes the relation of the end and the means.

(Opponent) If release is the goal, and the means to it is that Knowledge, then it should have been said, ‘Now the exposition of Knowledge’. So why does the sūtra say, Now the exposition of yoga?

(Answer) Because yoga is the means to Knowledge, and it is a means that has to be taught. For when means and ends are being set forth, the end has to have some means to it, and so the means must be described along with all its methods. When that is explained, all is explained.

(Opponent) How is yoga the means? (Answer) Because the sūtra says: From following up the methods of yoga, (there is) destruction of impurity and a growing light of knowledge, up to Knowledge-of-the-difference (II.28). Again, From skill in nirvicāra (samādhi without subtle associations), a clearness in the self (I.47), and In this, the knowledge is truth-bearing (I.48). In the same way here, the commentator is going to say: (but the samādhi) in the one-pointed mind makes clear an object as it really is, and Knowledge-of-the-difference is awareness of things as they really are (bhūtārtha). Therefore it has been rightly said in the first sūtra Now the exposition of yoga, because that is the means to Knowledge.

(Opponent) But if Knowledge-of-the-difference comes from following up the methods of yoga, it should be ‘Now the exposition of yoga methods’.

(Answer) No, because the result is being stated first. As yoga is the result of applying the means to yoga, it is right to begin with the word yoga.

(Opponent) Then it should begin with the word release.

(Answer) No, because that is a goal – release is a goal only. Yoga is a goal of the yoga methods, but it is also a means, and more properly the means to Knowledge than to supernormal powers such as becoming very small. For a result should conform to its means. There is also the sense of the next sūtra. For if it had been ‘Now the exposition of the methods of yoga’, it would not have been logical to go on to say that yoga is inhibition of the mental process, for in that case sūtra II.29, listing restraints, observances, posture, prāṇāyāma, dissociation, concentration, meditation and samādhi, would be the one to mention.

(Opponent) Yes, that should have come next.

(Answer) No, because the sūtra I.2 declares Yoga is inhibition of the mental processes in order to show the relation of means and result in regard to Knowledge: Knowledge is what is aimed at by yoga, but is the means to release, its result.

(Opponent) How does the sūtra go to show this relation? It simply gives a definition of seedless samādhi.

(Answer) True, but it does that only to show the relation between release and the means to it. For release is not something different from the samādhi of total inhibition (nirodha). There is some distinction in so far as after nirodha samādhi there is recurrence of active mental processes (pravṛtti), whereas release is a final cessation (nivṛtti) of them. But in that samādhi as such, there is no distinction from release. So the sūtra has said, Then the seer is established in his own nature (sūtra I.3), and it will also be said that being established in its own nature is release: or it is the establishment of the power-of-consciousness in its own nature (IV.34). So it is incontestable that the sūtra means to say that release is only by seedless (nirbīja) samādhi.

(Opponent) There is a view that seeded (sa-bīja) samādhi is a means to release.

(Answer) It is not. What is, then? Knowledge-of-the-difference alone is the means, by way of cessation of Ignorance. For bondage gets its power from Ignorance. Though the sūtra says only exposition of yoga, still since yoga aims at Knowledge, it does show that the relation of Knowledge to release is by way of yoga, and very clearly the connection with the later sūtra-s. So it is rightly said: exposition of yoga. Though the teaching also gives means to limited results for people aiming at them, and instruction on those means for those desiring to practise them, that is not its purpose; there it is merely pointing out (in passing) what would be the results of various methods. The exposition of yoga. A student is taught by setting out particular activities and abstentions and restrictions; so here the exposition of yoga, the particular end, involves the means with all its methods and restrictions like those of sūtra II.29. Exposition is instruction, and the work is an exposition of yoga because yoga is taught by it or so to say in it. The word Now means that this is a new topic (adhikāra). The tradition of the learned lays it down that the word Now (atha) means a new topic, a beginning (ārambha), an introduction (prastāva).

(Opponent) But the learned traditionally give the meaning ‘following on’ to the word Now. So Śabara says (on Mīmāṃsā sūtra 1.1.1), ‘Yet we see that the word Now normally has a meaning of something immediately following on some event.’

(Answer) No, because it always has the meaning of a beginning. It is (of course) implied that it does follow on (whatever went before); just so when the word ‘son’ is spoken, it is implied that there must be a father, though the meaning of ‘son’ is not ‘father’. Here, it is a beginning alone that is specified, though there is an implication of following on. That is why Śabara said, ‘We see that the word Now normally has a meaning of something immediately following on some event.’ If it had been the bare meaning of sequence, he would have said, ‘the meaning normally is immediately following on some event.’ But his expression is ‘something following on’, which must mean a thing which immediately follows (and therefore begins). In grammar too it is said: ‘An indeclinable has either mainly the sense of a case-inflection, or mainly that of action. Uccais (above), nīcais (below) and so on have mainly the sense of a case; hiruk (away), pṛthak (apart), etc. have mainly that of action.’ These are the only possible senses of indeclinables (such as atha, Now). Of the two possibilities, the word Now, even allowing the meaning of bare following on, could not reasonably be taken in the sense of a case, since the main thing there is a state-of-being; but taken in the sense of the action of beginning, it has not the unreasonable case-sense, since the principal thing now is not a state-of-being. Therefore the word Now must be taken simply as introducing the new topic. The word is self-explanatory, as when a man says ‘cow’. Moreover the word Now is often pronounced at the beginning for concentrating (samādhāna) a pupil’s mind; this is a principle well-known in the holy texts, for instance, ‘I will explain to you and do you meditate on my explanation’ (Bṛhad. Up. 2.4.4). Yoga is samādhi. It is a quality (dharma) of the mind in all the five mental states: impulsive, dull, changeable, one-pointed, inhibited. What then is the yoga, whose exposition is introduced? The commentator says, Yoga is samādhi. Since the word samādhi is in apposition to it, yoga is not to be taken as from the root yuj– in the sense of joining together, but in the sense of sam-ā-dhā, set together. Yoga is samādhāna (= samādhi), complete concentration.

(Opponent) By saying that yoga is samādhi he has completely explained the sūtra. He should not have added that it is in all the states, for this is irrelevant.

(Answer) Not so. Samādhi is mentioned, which means that there is something to be concentrated, and there are many things which might be concentrated. Is it the self (ātman) that is concentrated, or the body, or again the senses? There are many possibilities. Samādhi has to be defined in some way, and the natural question is, whose is it and what is its special nature? So he says: It is a quality of the mind in all the mental states. It is a quality of the mind, not of self or anything else. And it is the mind which concentrates itself, since there is no reference to any other who concentrates it. What then are the mental states? Impulsive, dull, changeable, onepointed and inhibited. The impulsive (kṣipta) state comes about as it were of itself, like an (overfull) granary spontaneously bursting apart. The impulsive state holds steady as long as it does not encounter something undesired. The dull (mūḍha) state is absence of discrimination. The changeable (vi-kṣipta) state is impelled (kṣipta) in various (vi-) directions. It too comes about as it were of itself. The occasional discrimination in this state does not last long, because it gets distracted. The one-pointed (ekāgra) state is a stream of similar thoughts. The inhibited (nirodha) state is a mind empty of thoughts.

(Opponent) It is the quality (dharma) of the states themselves that he wishes to describe: why is he now talking of impulsive and so on, which refer to their possessor (dharmin)?

(Answer) There is no mistake, for a quality is displayed by its possessor. The possessor is the field of the qualities. Asked about the distinguishing marks of the cow nature, the answer is: something with horns, with a hump, and with a hairy tail at the end. Thus the qualities are explained by their possessor. So the sense here is, that impulsiveness and so on are the states of the mind, namely its qualities.

(Opponent) If the states are mental qualities, the state of samādhi must be one too. Why then the phrase It is a quality of the mind in all the mental states, which makes it out to be the support of the others, and so having all of them?

(Answer) Because samādhi is common to all, whereas the other states are distinct from each other. We say that now there is the impulsive state, now there is dullness, now changeability, and now one-pointedness; all these states, while they last, have the common character of persisting. And persistence (sthiti) is samādhi. So it is the common feature which exists as each one comes to predominate. The form of the Sanskrit compound sārva-bhauma (in all the states) in the commentary is one of the compounds (Pāṇini 5.1.41) which by the grammatical rule (7.3.20) take the vṛddhi strengthening in both elements. There are some who declare that the states are the external and internal objects of saṃyama (samādhi on a chosen object). But if that were so, the next sentence (of the commentary): ‘in the changeable state of the mind’ would not be referring to the same thing. How should the commentator contradict himself like that? The impulsive state is that in which the mind is impelled; the dull is that in which it is confused. These therefore cannot be objects of saṃyama, in which state there is no possibility of impulsiveness or dullness, since it comes about in the one-pointed state. Then in the changeable state, there is no attempt at steadiness and so on, so no idea of firmness to support it. Nor can saṃyama exist in the inhibited mind, since there would be no mental process, and so nothing to effect saṃyama. In inhibition the mind is not restricted to a particular object, for there is no subject for an object. Nor would the listing of just five items be logical, for the impulsive and others being only five, could not be the objects of saṃyama, which are infinitely many.

(Opponent) Some would make yoga out to be otherwise. They say: Pleasure and pain arise from contact of senses and mind with objects; when that contact is not formed, when mind abides in self (ātman), there is neither pleasure nor pain for the embodied one; yoga is the inner union (samyoga) arising from control of prāṇa and mind. This is the view, further explained as follows: The cause of pleasure and pain is the contact of self, mind, and senses, with objects. By not forming it, there is neither pleasure nor pain. How can this be brought about? By the mind’s abiding in self and not abiding in the senses. The phrase ‘embodied one’ means that he still preserves a body. Then on the principle that without the cause there will be no effect, when there is no connection with objects there will be no pleasure or pain. In that state there is this union (saṃyoga) by the mind with the all-pervading self (vibhorātman). The union as described depends upon holding fast prāṇa and mind, and is called yoga.

(Answer) To speak of the mind abiding in self (ātman) is not logical, because mind always abides in self.

(Opponent) Abiding in self means that the senses and mind do not engage in contact with objects.

(Answer) Then just to say that they do not so engage would be perfectly clear, and it is pointless to add ‘when the mind abides in self. Furthermore it would follow that the released one would still be practising yoga, since his mind abides in self, and there is no sense-contact with objects. Since he is all-pervading, and the mind is eternal, it must always abide in self. Again, self has no location, so it is meaningless to speak of abiding in self. Nor could union with a self given a figurative location be a basis for a yoga of highest truth (paramārtha yoga), because anything figurative is illusory (mithyā). Further, since it is a principle (on your view) that mind can have no direct contact with objects, it is unnecessary to make separate mention of the senses. (Opponent) Without the sense, there is no contact of mind with objects; it could not reach them. So a prohibition (without mentioning the senses) against such contact by the mind would be illogical, because it would be impossible.

(Answer) Not so. Without the senses there is no contact of mind with objects (as you say). So by making the prohibition against engaging in them, it would be implicitly declared that reaching the objects is by way of the senses (which therefore need not be mentioned separately). Moreover it is well known that pleasure and pain are experienced in all living beings from the contact of senses and mind with objects, and since the relation with self is invariable, it should have been enough to say that yoga is the eternal relation with the self and absence of pleasure and pain; nothing more was needed.

(Opponent) Still, just to say that yoga is absence of pleasure and pain, without mentioning contact of the senses and mind with objects, would mean that the released one too would be practising yoga, because for him there is no pleasure or pain either. The extra statement was rightly made, to rule this out.

(Answer) No, because the released never has pleasure or pain, and a process of negation can only be of something which is already possessed. That yoga is in negation of pleasure and pain applies only to one who does now have pleasure and pain, so it is proper to disallow the supplementary remark. Moreover, if we accept that he is embodied, why would he have returned from the state of release? There would be no motive for it, since he is already released. If yoga is merely absence of pleasure and pain, the present body would have no purpose because it would not serve for any result, and without some result, there would be no distinction between those released and those not. Again, the statement about controlling prāṇa (vital currents) and mind is not right. The restraining effort of will is supposed to be inherent in the self, even without any activity of the mind, but without some contact with the senses it cannot effect control of mind and prāṇa. And if the mind is to be connected with the senses, then it is wrong to say that yoga is not engaging with them. And with the mind busy holding fast the prāṇa, there will be non-engagement with it. The prāṇa cannot be held fast without contact of senses and vital airs, and without holding fast the prāṇa, there is no yoga. Restraint of prāṇa is caused by a mental activity deriving from a restraining effort inherent in self.

(Opponent) Well then, what we mean by yoga is, (the separate state of) samādhi.

(Answer) That will not do. Self is actionless and always in samādhi. As we have said, steadiness (sthiti) is samādhi. Rightly has the commentator said, it is a quality of the mind in all the states. In the changeable state of the mind, the samādhi is subject to this changeability, and is not classed as yoga.

(Opponent) If yoga is to be samādhi, and that is a quality of the mind in all the states, the efforts of all living beings must be already fulfilled, for samādhi must accompany the changeable and other states. Since therefore it is already accomplished without efforts at breath control and so on, it follows that means to achieve it are useless, and this present exposition of yoga is also useless.

(Answer) In the changeable state of the mind, the samādhi is subject to this changeability, and is not classed as yoga. What is accompanied by impulsiveness or dullness or changeability is not accepted as yoga. For a samādhi accompanied by them cannot reveal things as they are (bhūtārtha), because they are predominating in it. By dismissing changeability the states of impulse and dullness are dismissed also, on the principle that when the main opponent is defeated, the others collapse. That the samādhi of changeability should be the most important is appropriate to the context, for the mind then can be led to anything desired without any special preference, but a mind impelled by the attractiveness of an object, or dulled by separation from what it wants, cannot be led in another direction. not classed as yoga: though there is a samādhi, it is not classed as yoga because it does not have any effect. When a man is walking, at every step there is a (momentary) stopping still (sthiti), but it is not called one because it does not have the effect of a stopping. The samādhi is subject to change, and he is simply pointing out that there is a samādhi in that state of changeability. The main thing is, that a samādhi does appear in each of the states, the common point being that the mental process is steady for a time in all of them.

(Opponent) If being subject to something is a reason for its not being classed as yoga, then in the one-pointed state too there is a subjection, namely to one-pointedness, so that should not be classed as yoga either. But the samādhi in the one-pointed mind makes clear the object as it is, destroys the taints, loosens the karma-bonds, and brings the state of inhibition into view; it is called cognitive.

(Answer) But the samādhi in the one-pointed mind: in one-pointedness where there is no subjection to a state. Why not? Because the taints and karmas are weakened. When taints and karmas are weakened, changeability and dullness and impulsiveness do not arise. The samādhi in the state of one-pointedness makes clear brings to experience the object as it is. For one not a yogin, the knowledge of things will have a trace of ‘not-as-it-is’ – this being the force of the word bhūta, meaning as-it-is. It destroys makes an end of the taints which are five-fold, Ignorance and the others. It loosens makes slack the karma-bonds bonds being purely karmic, produced by actions good, bad and mixed, which bind to life-and death. It brings the state of inhibition clearly into view, This is technically called by the teachers cognitive (sam-prajñāta). It follows on meditations with verbal associations (vitarka), meditations with subtle associations (vicāra), meditations accompanied with joy, and meditations accompanied with I-am-ness; and we shall speak of it later. Here the commentator remarks that it is better to have the definition of ultra-cognitive (a-sam-prajñāta) samādhi here, rather than to take the definition of the cognitive first. So he says, We shall speak of it later. Accordingly the definition of ultra-cognitive samādhi is now to be given here to show that it is independent of the cognitive, being perfected by the two practices of highest detachment (para-vairāgya) and the idea of stopping (virāma-pratyaya, 1.18). If the definition of the cognitive were given here, and that of the other one later, there would be some suspicion that only through the cognitive is there qualification for ultra-cognitive samādhi. (This is not so and) thus he says that he will speak of the cognitive one later. But the ultra-cognitive (samādhi) is when there is inhibition of all mental processes. The next sūtra is presented to give a definition of it. But the ultra-cognitive is when there is inhibition of all mental processes. The word But has the meaning of restriction. the next sūtra is presented to give a definition of it, of the pure ultra-cognitive samādhi thus described. So it is right that the sūtra now states: