ciit vrtti nirodha (2)

[Guest guest]

Yes, that was what I liked the best about Bouanchaud, the

unique and refreshing "form" of his presentation/discussion --

This type of presentation has great potential restating

as it does the sutra in those many different ways, but

his content (or translation) appears to be way off i.e., it

conforms to the institutionalized prejudices.

 

It took many years to figure out why this prevails with

the keepers of the books (the intellectuals, scholars, and

academicians), but here it is -- they have a blind spot i.e., being

right, conforming to proven theories, proving theories

through deduction, inference, and logic, while yoga has

nothing to do with these but rather considers such a

distraction (vrtti).

 

Let us use sutra two again to explain :-) (although there are

numerous other examples). There exist here only three words

that we need to translate -- nirdha, vrtti, and citta.

 

If we go direct to the Sanskrit, everyone would agree

that nirodha means cessation, yet very few English

translations use cessation. Cessation is kinda passive,

isn't it while even the word elimination has the

connotation of being more active in comparison.

Suppression and control (the most commonly translated

words) definitely do not fit at all. So we see a prejudice

not based on the words Patanjali uses, but rather on a

philosophy that is super-imposed upon the Yoga Sutras.

 

These same translators say what is to be controlled is

the mind, yet Patanjali says quite clearly, no, very simply

that yoga is accomplished when the vrtt citta (

modifications of consciousness) cease.

 

Now what is vrttis other than perturbations, turmoil,

agitation, modifications, distractions, skews, distortions, and

the like. When they cease, the consciousness is liberated

and we are able to abide in our inherent and profound

natural state (sutra 3). So very simple and clear, yes?

 

But here is why there is a translation problem. problem.

>From Sutra 4- 12 Patanjali starts to tell us about these vrttis,

identify them, and tell us how they operate, and how they

cause suffering. He says that they can be broken down

into five categories and the first category is pramana.

Pramana can be translated best as authoritative belief

systems, accepted dogma, or systems accepted as objective

or valid (by pre-existing authorities). It is sometimes

translated as Right Knowledge. Its sources are perception,

inference, induction, deduction, verbal testimony of others, or

cognition in general.

 

Now here is the crux, pramana is a vrtti and thus serves

as a further occlusion of the citta not its elimination.

Anyone who has learned to think for themselves and

questioned conventional wisdom (authority) and prejudices

of their time, know that pramana is an obstacle/distraction.

Patanjali because he meditated (was not a dogmatist, but

rather a yogi). A meditator must experience Reality

subjectively (as well as objectively or rather where they

unite as one) for themselves in order to reach samadhi.

Patanjali knew this and tried to make sure that his

book didn't ever become co-opted to support vrtti or

become reduced to philosophy, ethics, dogma, theory, or

objective authoritarianism, yet this key (sutras 1-12) did not sit

right with the dogmatists, intellectuals, academicians, so

they upheld and preserved the commentaries that

reflected their own prejudice i.e., that mis-interpreted Patanjali

as saying that vrtii (pramana) was somehow (and astonishingly)

good or even necessary. This black hole type of denial and lack of

self criticism occurs in an area of mass self delusion (shared illusion)

which pretty much pictures India's large "intelligentsia"

and scholarly tradition.

 

So here we see philosophy as well as classical samkhya

having an aim of knowledge by proving theories (of which

pramana is one), but yoga is meant to go beyond ordinary

knowledge (validated or not by objective systems of

authority). Yoga is meant to take us to samadhi (union,

liberation, or realization) versus objective knowledge or

proven theories. But when a philosopher (be they samkhya or

not) takes yoga and tries to fit it into their own system

of thought it will not fit and this is what has

happened to the translations that are based on the

intellectual and scholarly commentaries.

 

In other words pramana is a modification, and for a

meditator who wants to reach samadhi it must be made to

cease, i.e., it is a distraction/diversion, so when I look for a

translation I always check how the author translates

these first sutras. This will tell me if it is merely an

intellectual/philosophical based on logic and

memorization or does the author escape the

authoritative trap of institutionalized tradition (read

illusion)?

 

My experience is that out of ten translations are

tragically colored (perverted) by the academic/intellectual

tradition (Indians seem not to like to buck "revered"

authority no matter how dysfunctional they can be shown

to be). I guess that as the new India gets a bit more self

confident, the creative spirit will once again return to

its intellectual community as well (something that Osho

for one had much to say about). I feel that India will

reach the potential of its past creative genius when it

is able to embrace the new, by throwing away some of the

old baggage -- this is where Buddhism, hatha yoga, tantra, and

other contributions originally came from (not from

blindly parotting the Vedas). Oh oh the parrot is back

again :-(

 

So what translation I would recommend depends on the

presence of insight and the absence or presence of the

aforesaid prejudice.

 

For instance Desikachar translates Sutra 2 as "Yoga is the

ability to direct the mind exclusively toward an object

and sustain that direction without any distraction." Now

where does Desikachar get this from, certainly not

Patanjali. Throughout Desikachar's translation he

constantly puts in things that are not there (but are in

the old commentaries) so instead of amplifying

Patanjali's meaning it perverts it. So no I can not

recommend it. He is consistent in his prejudice.

 

Since the Sanskrit language is structured so

differently than English and its word meanings are very

much interconnected with sound, mathematics, and their

philosophical relationships, any attempt at direct one

word of Sanskrit with one equivalent word of English

will seriously fail, but that does not mean that a good

translation would not benefit from a translation of

each key Sanskrit word by itself.

 

So with that in "mind" my prejudice on the web by far

points to Swami Venkatesananda's translation at

http://dailyreadings.com/sutras_1.htm

You might call it interpretive (but what isn't except

samadhi) -- Consciousness in this respect is not always better (

unless we take the route beyond words altogether). This

brings up another point, should Patanjali remained silent--

but it was inevitable that some one would write a book "

about" yoga and it was inevitable that the words would be

mis-interpreted, ja?

 

The other Web site of interest is

http://www.webb.net/sites/heartmind/yogasutra1.htm

 

Sri Brahmanada (Dr. Rammurti Mishra) book,

The textbook of "Yoga Psychology" has the insight, but

the discussion assumes that the reader may be familiar

with Indian philosophical concepts in depth (most are not).

 

The other book is not a word for translation but

completely devoted to a discussion of the yoga sutras

in a non-dual way, "the Integrity of the Yoga Darshana: A

Reconsideration of Classical Yoga" by Ian Whichler, SUNY, 1998. Whicler

is Deputy Director of the Dharam Hinduja Inst. of Indic

Research at the Univ. of Cambridge. He writes:

 

"Although several valuable contemporary scholarly

writings have helped to present Patanjali's "philosophy" to

a wider academic and popular audience, our study suggests

that Patanjali has far too often been misinterpreted or

misrepresented due to the use of inappropriate

methodology: partial and misleading definitions of

Sanskrit yogic terms and reductionist hermeneutics

leading to an imposed radical, dualistic finality or

closure to Patanjali's perspective of Yoga. Many scholars

have repeatedly given ontological definitions and

explanations for terms that, this study maintains, are more

appropriately understood with an epistemological

emphasis. Consequently, the specialized sense inherent in

Yoga soteriology is diminished. The soteriological intent

of Yoga need not preclude the possibility for an

integrated embodied state of liberated identity. A bias

is invariably created within the language encountered

in the translations and interpretations of the "Yoga

Sutras" resuting in an overemphasis on content, due

consideration not having been given to form, structure, and

function. It is crucial to view Yoga contextually -- as it is

understood, experienced, and embodied by the yogin -- and not

simply impute a content-system to the whole process of

yoga."