Thursday, April 4, 2013
PATANJALI - YOGASUTRAS - CH.4.19,4.20,4.21 - HOW/WHERE FROM DOES THE MIND RECEIVE ITS POWER OF PERCEPTION
KAIVALYA PAADHA essentially deals with how the state of Samadhi transforms us. It is a pointer to its essential characteristics. The following sutras deal with (i) is the mind the real perceiver (ii) who illumines the mind, and (iii) Can there be more than one mind, one illumining and the other perceiving
na tat svabhaasam drishyatvat
Ø na = is not
Ø tat = it
Ø svabhaasam = self illuminating
Ø drishyatvat = knowability
We assume that our mind is the perceiver of all external objects and matters. While this appears to be true apparently, the mind itself is an object of perception for the Purusha, the pure consciousness, The Purusha remains the witness and perceives everything through the mind and the mind itself. This being so, the mind is not the power that actually perceives. This power lies with the Purusha. Purusha’s power only reflects through the mind. That is why, this sutra says that the mind itself is not self-illuminating, but, is the object of perception
Ø eka-samaye = at the same time
Ø cha = and
Ø ubhaye = both
Ø anavadhaaranam = cannot be cognized
We know that mind itself can be cognized. But, the whole cognition process happens only through the mind.
It must be clear to us that cognition of the mind and cognition of the external matters and objects cannot happen simultaneously through the same mind itself.
chitta antara drishye
smriti sankarah cha
Ø chitta = of the mind
Ø antara = another
Ø drishye = seen
Ø buddhi-buddheh = perceiver of perception
Ø atiprasangah = abundance
Ø smriti = remembering
Ø sankarah = confusion
Ø cha = and
This sutra examines the possibility that there is in fact another mind which illumines the mind which perceives. If the mind which perceives and cognizes is to be illumined by another mind, then, who illumines that mind which illumines the perceiving mind. There will be an endless series of minds which cognize – each its next lower level mind.
This assumption even prima facie, appears to be clearly a meaningless assumption.
* * * E N D * * *