yogahcittavrttinirodha (1)

[Guest guest]

This should be simple and straight forward to anybody

who knows elementary Sanskrit and who meditates, but one

must ask WHY IS IT THAT MOST TRANSLATIONS TRANSLATE IT

AS SUPPRESSION OF THE MIND? My conclusion is that it is

so because of institutionalized authoritarianism within

the academic/philosophical community.

 

Most definitely "control the mind" is incorrect on all

accounts. At "best" it could be control or suppress the

vrttis, but nirodha does not mean control, but cessation/

stilling -- eliminating the modifications and turbulance

which in turn modifies the consciousness (cit vrtti). Yes, a

very important distinction. Simple, yoga is about learning

what causes the perturbations, disturbances, and

modifications (vrttis) of consciousness and how to no

longer be subject or limted to them (nirodha).

 

Here again this mis-translation is a good example of

the prejudice toward individual will power by academic

translators who don't meditate. Anybody who meditates for

a while (or has been trained by an experieneced meditator)

knows that it's not about controlling or suppressing

the mind stuff -- gosh meditation would really be awful

that way. In fact it is about letting them go and

dissolving them (nirodha vrtti) so that the cit (stream of

consciousness) will no longer be disturbed, restrained,

modified, or artificially limited. Then "Tada drastuh svarupe

vasthanam" -- consciousness can abide in its profound natural

state.

 

When I didn't know much Sanskrit and had only been

meditating a few years, I felt very uneasy about half of

the sutras (they didn't feel right), but I knew that there

was some truth in them somewhere. I'd keep on going back

to them every year, to see how they would resonate, and I

found that they changed according to how my own self

understanding changed. Finally I started to be able to

identify the problem.

 

There are English translators who do not know Sanskrit

well.

There are Indian scholars who know Sanskrit, but not

English well.

There are Sanskrit scholars who do not know Yoga well (or

English well).

There exist translators who know neither Sanskrit,

English, nor yoga.

 

There exist parrots who simply want to conform to

authority and invent big words and commentaries.

 

Etc.

 

Bouanchaud's translation doubly suffers that it is from

the French and it seems to me that the English

translator may know French, but not Sanskrit. He has a

refreshing way of discussing the topics, but to be honest

I feel that it is way off. For instance how can he

translate "yogah citta-vrtti-nirodha" -- "Yoga is the ability to

direct and focus mental activity"? Where is nirodha and

vrtti and how does he get the words, "focus" and "direct"? Is he

making it up? Well maybe not, but he is getting that from

the institutionalized "authoritative" commentaries, not the

text itself.

 

Perhaps this is why the commentaries are so long i.e., that

they try to reconcile their own contradictory

interpretations while it is my "interpretation" that if we

take Patanjali at his word i.e., that he is saying exactly

what he means, then it is very simple and self

explanatory. i.e., "yogah citta-vrtti-nirodha" -- yoga is the process

of dissolving/ceasing the occlusion/modifications of the

citta (mind stream) or consciousness. Here knowing the

Sanskrit of Patanjali's day helps make it clear that

the word, citta, here does not refer to the ordinary mind,

while it helpful to know that in Sanskrit there are

many words which contain very different meanings which "

scholars" translate as "mind" because there is no exact

English equivalent and that is why word for word

Sanskrit to English translation suffers greatly.

 

Bouanchaud further makes many similar mistakes

throughout his book.. anybody want it cheap?

 

When I attack such translations (gosh I've seen too many)

perhaps I get a bit disturbed :-) remembering my own

frustration trying to figure it out. Perhaps some of that

comes through in my criticism of Bouancaud and others

of his ilk, so I hope that no one takes this personally

or that I am dumping on anybody.

[Guest guest]

 

Dave Sirjue [dsirju]

When I attack such translations (gosh I've seen too many)

perhaps I get a bit disturbed :-) remembering my own

frustration trying to figure it out. Perhaps some of that

comes through in my criticism of Bouancaud and others

of his ilk, so I hope that no one takes this personally

or that I am dumping on anybody.

 

[Madhava Replies:]

 

Pranams Deve-ji:

 

yOgaH citta vritti nirOdhah... use it when ever you get disturbed. Do you

know that reading is also a cittavritti? So don't read... :-)

 

I would give much thought over the last word "nirOdha" in this sentence.

One needs to know about what is nirodha and who is attempting it?

 

In my humble opinion, contemplating from nirodha part of it and reading back

this sentence would be much better. (i.e. We have to understand in reality

the word Nirodha, how does it happen and at which levels.) For example we

know that we do not have control on our dreams, they happen with out our

effort. But we know that most of the dreams are nothing but the jumble, of

the collection of data, which we acquired through our five sense organs,

during the data time! In this way we can infer that what we see is

effecting our dreams, if we can control what we see, then we can achieve a

bit of control on our dreams. Direct control of dreams is impossible, but

indirect control of dreams is possible. Same way, cittavritti --- as

rightly pointed out by you --- can not be achieved through attempting forced

control of thoughts, but through indirect methods. Bhagawan Krishna advises

"abhyAsa (practice) and Viragya (renunciation)".

 

I remain yours,

Madhava