When that is accomplished, the seer abides in its own true nature.

Bryant Commentary:

There are various terms in Hindu philosophical thought to refer to the soul according to context or the partiality of different texts and schools, ātman being perhaps the most commonly encountered. The Yoga tradition in general favors puruṣa, but Patañjali here uses (the genitive case of) draṣṭṛ, the seer (from the root dṛś, to see), a term he uses on several occasions throughout the text, and, indeed, along with other cognates of the root dṛś, is used almost as often as puruṣa. By seeing, he does not intend the gross power of sight as manifest through the physical organ of sight but as a metaphor for consciousness itself, which “sees” in the sense of exhibiting awareness.

Having stated in the last sūtra that yoga means the cessation of all thought, Patañjali now immediately reassures his audience. Some might worry that cessation of thought—the elimination of all objects of consciousness—entails the cessation of the subject of consciousness, puruṣa, itself. After all, our only experience of reality is one mediated by the thinking process. Does the elimination of thought entail the elimination of experience and of existence itself? Is it existential suicide? What happens to the puruṣa self, asks Vyāsa, when the mind is void of content, as prescribed in the last sūtra?

Vijñānabhikṣu rhetorically considers three possibilities that might transpire once all the vṛttis, states of mind, have been removed: (1) Does the puruṣa soul remain as pure consciousness that is conscious only of itself? (2) Does it remain unconscious, like a log of wood (becoming conscious only when confronted by a state of mind, as held by the followers of the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika schools)? Does it cease to exist like a lamp on the destruction of the wick (as held by followers of the materialistic Cārvāka school)? The Yoga school subscribes to the first view. Once freed from its association with the states of the mind, the soul can abide in its own nature, the highest state of pure consciousness, asamprajñāta-samādhi. It is devoid even of knowledge, says Vijñānabhikṣu, since knowledge implies an object of knowledge and thus requires a connection with the states of mind and the external world.

In fact, Vyāsa and the commentators make the point that the soul has always abided in its own nature, even though, when it is absorbed in the outgoing mind and the world of thoughts and sense objects, it appears not to be. The nature of the soul is pure consciousness, just as, says Śaṅkara, the nature of the sun is and has always been to shine. It needs no external instrument to shine, nor does it exert any effort to do so; indeed, it has no alternative but to shine. Similarly, it is the inherent and inescapable nature of puruṣa to be conscious.

To illustrate the nature of the soul as pure consciousness alone, devoid of content, the commentators often refer to the example of a pure transparent crystal used frequently (and variously) in philosophical discourse to illustrate the relationship between consciousness and the mind (or between the mind and its object). When a red flower is placed next to a crystal, the flower’s color is reflected in the crystal, and so the crystal itself appears to be red. The true nature of the crystal, however, is never actually red, nor is it affected or changed by the flower in any way—even while it reflects the flower—nor does it disappear when the flower is removed. Similarly, consciousness reflects or illuminates external objects and internal thoughts, vṛttis, but is not itself affected by them. Puruṣa, although an autonomous entity separable from the citta with its vṛttis placed in its vicinity, is as if colored by them. Since its awareness animates the citta, which is “colored,” it is consequently (and understandably) misidentified with the vṛttis by the citta. But in actuality it is not tainted by them, nor does it disappear upon the disappearance of the objects of consciousness. As a crystal is essentially an autonomous entity separable from the red flower placed in its vicinity and retains its pure transparent nature when separated from the flower, so consciousness is an autonomous entity separable from the citta with its vṛttis placed in its vicinity, and thus retains its pure nature of awareness when detached from the citta through the practice of yoga. The commentaries frequently utilize another example favored by the Vedānta school to illustrate a related point: Mother-of-pearl does not give up its own essential nature simply because someone mistakes it for the actual pearl itself. Likewise, consciousness does not change its nature simply because it may be confounded with the physical body or the changing states of the mind and intelligence.

The Śānti-parvan section of the Mahābhārata abounds in similes illustrating the continued existence of puruṣa when apart from its prākṛtic encapsulation.55 It is like a silkworm that continues to exist after the destruction of the cell made by its threads, a deer that abandons its horn or a snake its slough after shedding it, a bird that goes elsewhere when the tree on which it is perched falls (XII 212.47–49), or a fish and the water that surrounds it (XII 303.17). Elsewhere, the epic compares the direct vision of the soul within the body indicated by this sūtra to the perception of a lamp blazing forth from a pot (XII 187.44), the effulgent sun, a smokeless flame, a streak of lightning in the sky (XII 232.18), or the streak of gold in a stone (XII 198.4).

Then The Seer Abides In Itself.

Then, pure awareness can abide in its very nature.

When this happens, then the Seer is revealed, resting in its own essential nature, and one realizes the True Self.

Then the Seer is established in his own essential and fundamental nature.

Taimini Commentary:

This Sutra points out in a general way what happens when all the modifications of the mind at all levels have been completely inhibited. The Seer is established in his Svarupa or in other words attains Self-realization. We cannot know what this state of Self-realization is as long as we are involved in the play of Citta-Vrttis. It can only be realized from within and not comprehended from without. Even the partial and superficial comprehension which we can obtain under our present limitations by means of study and reflection is possible only after we have mastered the whole theory and technique of Yoga outlined in this treatise. The higher stages of consciousness which unfold in the state of Samadhi and which are referred to in I-44 and 45 are called Rtambhara or truth-right-bearing. In their light the Yogi can know the truth underlying all things in manifestation. But he can know the truth in this way of only those things which are part of Drsyam, the Seen, not of the Drasta the Seer. For this he has to practise Nirbija Samadhi (I-51).

Then, the seer dwells in his own true splendour.

Iyengar Commentary:

When the waves of consciousness are stilled and silenced, they can no longer distort the true expression of the soul. Revealed in his own nature, the radiant seer abides in his own grandeur.

Volition being the mode of behaviour of the mind, it is liable to change our perception of the state and condition of the seer from moment to moment. When it is restrained and regulated, a reflective state of being is experienced. In this state, knowledge dawns so clearly that the true grandeur of the seer is seen and felt. This vision of the soul radiates without any activity on the part of citta. Once it is realized, the soul abides in its own seat.

Then the Seer (Self) abides in Its own nature.

Satchidananda Commentary:

 You are that true Seer. You are not the body nor the mind. You are the Knower or Seer. You always see your mind and body acting in front of you. You know that the mind creates thoughts; it distinguishes and desires. The Seer knows that but is not involved in it.

But to understand that eternal peaceful You, the mind must be quiet; otherwise, it seems to distort the truth. If I explain this through an analogy, it will probably be easier to understand. You are the Seer who wants to see Itself. How? Even in the case of your physical face, if I ask if you have ever seen it, you have to say no, because it is the face that sees. The face itself is the seer or the subject. What it sees in the mirror is its image, the seen or the object. If the mirror is corrugated, curved, concave or convex, will you be able to see your true face? No. It will appear to be awful— too big or too high or full of waves. Will you be worried seeing this? No. You will immediately know something is wrong with the mirror. You are seeing a distorted reflection. Only if the mirror is perfectly smooth and clean will it give you the true reflection. Only then can you see your face as it is.

In the same way, the Seer, or true you, reflects in the mind which is your mirror. Normally, you can’t see the true Self because your mind is colored. If the mind is dirty, you say, “I am dirty.” If it’s all polished and shining, “I am beautiful.” That means you think you are your reflection in the mind. If the mind has a lot of waves like the surface of a lake, you will be seeing a distorted reflection. If the water of the mental lake is muddy or colored, you see your Self as muddy or colored. To see the true reflection, see that the water is clean and calm and without any ripples. When the mind ceases to create thought forms or when the citta is completely free from vṛttis, it becomes as clear as a still lake and you see your true Self.

Hearing this analogy, you might turn around and ask me, “Does that mean the Seer misunderstands Itself or has forgotten Itself?” No. The Seer can never misunderstand nor forget Itself. But we are talking on the level of the reflection. The reflection is distorted, so the Seer appears to be distorted. The true you is always the same, but you appear to be distorted or mixed up with the mind. By making the mind clean and pure, you feel you have gone back or you appear to have gone back to your original state.

At that time (the time of concentration) the seer (the Purasa) rests in his own (unmodified) state.

SV Commentary:

As soon as the waves have stopped, and the lake has become quiet, we see the ground below the lake. So with the mind; when it is calm, we see what our own nature is; we do not mix ourself but remain our own selves.

There being “no object of cognition in that state of the mind, what is the state of the conscious principle (purusa) who has identified himself with the cognitions of the Will-to-be ? “Then the seer stands in his own nature.” At that time the power of consciousness is established in, its own nature, as in the state of perfect freedom. In the outgoing mind it appears to be not so centred in its own nature, though in reality it is the same.

~ Rāma Prasāda translation.

Yogasūtrabhāṣyavivaraṇa
or the Pātañjalayogaśāstravivaraṇa
by Śaṅkara

Patañjali Sūtra I.3

Then the Seer is established in his own nature

Then the power-of-consciousness rests in its own nature, as in the state of release. But when the mind is extraverted, though it is so, it is not so.

It has been said that yoga is inhibition of the mental processes, by which inhibition the true being of Puruṣa as the cognizer (boddhṛ) is realized. In which case some might suppose that with inhibition of the thoughts of objects, there would be inhibition of the subject, the cognizer, the Puruṣa, also. Then they would assume that it would not be sensible to try to attain Knowledge-of-the-difference, the means to release, and that the exposition of yoga, which aims at that Knowledge, would be futile. To show that inhibition of the mental process is not inhibition of Puruṣa, and to point directly to the result of Knowledge, the commentator says: What is Puruṣa, the cognizer of buddhi, in that state when there is no object for him? Then the seer is established in his own nature. When the mental process has been inhibited, then the power-of-consciousness rests in its own nature.

In that state, in the state of inhibition, when there is no object for him since the object, the mental process, is not there, what is the nature of Puruṣa, the cognizer of buddhi? Puruṣa is the cognizer of buddhi in the sense that he is aware of buddhi in its transformations as the forms of the mental processes. The nature of Puruṣa is simple awareness of them; the one who is aware is not different from the awareness. If the one who is aware were different from the awareness itself, he would be changeable and then would not be a mere witness who has objects shown to him. So his awareness and subjectivity are spoken of figuratively as if conforming to a mental process. But the sūtra will say, The Seer is sight alone (II.20).

Here it is being asked, what is the real being of that Puruṣa, the cognizer of buddhi (buddhi-bodhātman)? The compound buddhi-bodhātman means that his nature is pure awareness of buddhi. Is it a perishable nature? Or if it is real being (sad-bhāva), what sort of real being is it, and how does it come about?

Then the Seer is established in his own nature: when the mental process has been inhibited, then the power-of-consciousness rests in its own nature. Rests in its own nature means that it is like release. He is going to speak of that real being later (IV. 19) when he says Mind is not self-illumining, because it is itself something perceived. The phrase about resting in its own nature has been used in order to clear up any doubt as to what is its real being.

(Opponent) The sūtra is in definite terms, and it must follow that at some other time the power-of-consciousness is not so established, for otherwise the specification Then would be meaningless. And if at this other time it is not established in its own nature, there is the objection that it will be subject to change, because it will then have become associated with a different condition.

(Answer) But when the mind is extraverted, though it is so, it is not so. The first phrase though it is so shows that even in this time of extraversion, the power-of-consciousness is established in its own nature, it is not so shows that the specification of the time of extraversion has some meaning.

How can this be? It is because objects are displayed to it.