Translation and Realization / Yoga Sutras

Meditationtime Forum Post

Date:  Posted 5 years before Jul 02, 2017

 

MiBeloved 5 years ago

This is from a heated discussion on LinkedIn:

 

===========================

 

Michael Beloved to Satyajit,

 

I have not seen anywhere in Patanjali where he says that you do not need the mind to see and also which ‘you’ is this, which ‘self’ is this which does not need the mind. Just want to understand how you are using the terms.

 

My question is that I do not need the mind to see what? What level of reality? Can I perceive every level without the mind?

 

I have never seen that in Patanjali.

 

****************************

Take a look at how I translated that verse:

 

draṣṭā dṛśimātraḥ śuddhaḥ api pratyayānupaśyaḥ

 

draṣṭā – the perceiver; dṛśi – perception, consciousness; mātraḥ – measure or extent; śuddhaḥ – purity; api – but; pratyayaḥ – conviction or belief as mental content; anu – following along, patterning after; paśyaḥ – what is perceived.

 

The perceiver is the pure extent of its consciousness but its conviction is patterned by what it perceives.

 

****************************

 

If you find the Sanskrit to English as deviant let me know.

 

This is from this book:

 

https://sites.google.com/site/michaelbeloved/yoga-sutras-of-patanjali

 

===========================

 

michael c weir wrote:

Hi Michael Beloved,

The quote that I had of verse 22 was taken from the translation and

commentary by Swami Satchidananada. He gave thanks to T.M.P Mahadevan<

PhD., Professor of Philosophy, University of Madras, for his "scholarly

assistance in checking over the translations from Sanskrit to English"

 

Here is the authorized translation of that verse.

 

Drashta = the Seer; drisimatrah = the power of seeing; suddho'pi =although

pure; pratyaya = through the mind; anupasyah = appears as if seeing.

 

The full translation is:

 

'The Seer is nothing but the power of seeing which, although pure, appears to see through the mind.'

 

As you can see, you came close.

 

Michael

 

===========================

 

Satyajit K.T wrote:

Micheal you asked:

 

[My question is that I do not need the mind to see what? What level of reality? Can I perceive every level without the mind?]

 

You do not need mind to see the mind.

When you can see the mind, then Purusha is the seer, mind is the seen.

 

You may use the mind to see other things.

Then the mind is the seer and the other things are seen.

But in that case your perception is colored as you are assuming that mind alone sees (in that act you have brought in the union of Pusrusha and prakriti)

 

I am not saying that you never use the mind to see. You do, but as long as you know that mind alone cannot see, it needs the power of seeing bestowed by Purusha then you are not in pain.

 

The description of pain we will discuss in the coming slokas.

 

===========================

 

Michael Beloved to michael c weir,

 

What do you mean by authorized? Who authorized it?

In that translation what does the word mātraḥ mean? It in a compound form with the other word. Has it no meaning? Is it just an expression word as many other Sanskrit words like api are?

 

===========================

 

Before you answer about the authority, let me clarify that in India each of the lineages or sampradayas regard their sect as the AUTHORITY, as the only ones authorized to translate. But maybe you have some other information since you seem to be saying that translation is the authorized one. Thus my question about who authorized it.

 

My translation is not just a matter to coming close to any of these authorities. It is based on meditation experiences not on sampradaya prestige, even though I am in a sampradaya from India physically.

 

I did not come close to that translation unless you are saying that my meditation experience was similar to that author's. If that is just a translation then mine has no relationship to it. If it is a realization, then I would want to sit down with the author and get insight into their meditation. I am not interested in any authorized or unauthorized translation which is not based on direct meditation practice which was in compliance with Patanjali's system.

 

===========================

 

Alfredo Delregato, MS, CIH, FLAC, FMA to Shri Satyajit!

 

Book 2 Verse 20: draṣṭā dṛśimātraḥ śuddhaḥ api pratyayānupaśyaḥ

 

Your translation: Though the seer is nothing but the power of seeing, it appears as though he sees through the mind.

 

Michael Beloved's: The perceiver is the pure extent of its consciousness but its conviction is patterned by what it perceives.

 

Your conclusion: [What Patanjali very clearly says here is that you do not need the mind to see. Seeing is an act that is beyond the mind.]

 

Patanjali never "clearly" says that. You stretch it quite a bit. But you have a point. The Seer or the Self is of the nature of pure consciousness. As long as the Seer is dominated by Avidya (ignorance), he must identify with the Chitta (thought-waves) of the mind. But when Avidya is destroyed and higher, institutional knowledge is affected, then the Seer become one with the Seen.

 

You must explain what you mean "to see". You are inferring higher "seeing", "real seeing", when taken in that context, only then your explanation that you do not need the mind to see makes sense.

 

===========================

 

Ragavan V.s.:

Michael Beloved wrote: Before you answer about the authority, let me clarify that in India each of the lineages or sampradayas regard their sect as the AUTHORITY, as the only ones authorized to translate.

 

Ragavan V.s Reply:

Mr. Sathya is doing an immense job here and your contribution is lovely. So i do not want to get into the subject directly. But Need to clarify few things which are general in nature. In fact, if you look deep into many lineages or sampradayas of vedic thoughts or yogic thoughts, they may differ in its direction, but their focus is the same. All of them rightly agrees, that vedas are supreme, and never in their comments questioned, vedic texts. That is unalterable.

 

Now on authority, as commented by MW. Swami satchinanda, was an eminent scholar on vedas, and he advocates advaita school of thought. And I also read your book on Yoga sutras' co authored with Madhavacharya,-- A lovely and exhaustive book on this subject, and you belong to the Vaishanava school of thought, and this difference definitely exist. Your school is dualism and they belong to monism. So suggest, just take the meaning as it is, and both your understanding applies to this sutra.

 

If we read the sutra 21/22/23 and we get the full picture, and definitely not in isolation. Namaste.

 

===========================

 

Subhash Mittal :

I just happened to "run into" this thread and have found the discussion truly enlightening. I realize that this thread has been going on for a while. If I may, I would like to add my two cents as well.

 

Dear Michael Beloved, I don’t quite understand your statement "my translation is not just a matter to coming close to any of these authorities. It is based on meditation experiences". I would like to believe that translation from Sanskrit to English and self-realization through meditation are two totally separate topics. We definitely need a thorough understanding of the Sanskrit language to be able to first translate the sutra and then try to interpret what Patanjali might have intended in those very terse and crisp statements. That is the reason that no two translations or interpretations are identical. Also, the word "drishi-matrah" in this context means "nothing other than the power of seeing". The word "matrah" could mean, depending upon where it is used, as "mere", "only", "nothing but", "as much/far/big as etc".

 

Dear Satyajit, first of all I would like to congratulate and thank you for bringing this very important topic up for discussion. On the question of who the real seer is, I would like to do some loud thinking here.

 

Let us look at sutra 2.18 "prakasha kriya sthiti shilam bhuta indriya atmakam bhoga apavarga artham drishyam" which is translated by Sw. Satchidananda as "The seen is of the nature of the gunas: illumination, activity and inertia; and consists of the elements and sense organs, whose purpose is to provide both experiences and liberation to the Purusha". Purusha is nothing but pure consciousness. The "drishyam" or prakriti has the sole purpose of providing "experience" and "liberation" to the Purusha. The experience mentioned here represents anything and everything that is perceived by the buddhi. Let me quote from the commentary on this sutra by Hariharananda Aranya "reception (perception) is only attributed to the Seer though it actually takes place in buddhi. Purusha is only the experiencer of the result of reception or a Seer of what is happening in the mind".

 

To me, sutra 2.18 means that the mind (buddhi) is the "eyes and ears" for the Purusha. When the buddhi is impure it is believed that IT is the seer and the experiencer. When the buddhi is purified, it realized the distinction between purusha and itself and knows that it is only an "instrument" for the purusha to provide it with the experience. Purusha then becomes the Seer. Vyaasa, in his commentary, gives the example of an army chief and the soldiers where, even though the soldiers do the real fighting, the general gets the "credit" for victory or defeat.

 

Similarly, since Purusha is providing the consciousness to the buddhi, even though all the "seeing" is done by the buddhi, Purusha gets the credit and becomes the Seer.

 

So, who is the seer? When the buddhi is impure, the mind thinks it is the Seer. When the buddhi is purified, it knows that it is separate from Purusha and its role is to provide experience to the Purusha. At that point it declares Purusha (the army chief) to be the Seer.

- Subhash

 

===========================

 

Michael Beloved to Raghavan V.s:

 

Thanks for your informed comment. Just wanted to clarify that Madhavacarya is my Sampradaya name.

 

In my translation of the Yoga Sutras, I was not acting as a representative of a Sampradaya. I did that based on meditation experience practice and astral association with practicing yogis. The authority was honest practice and not lineage status. To support this if you get an opportunity take a look at the mind/subtle-body diagrams concerning the Yoga Sutras in my Meditation Expertise book.

 

For that matter if you provide an address (use private message), I would ask the printer to send you a complimentary copy of it.

 

I am hopeful that you would stay in the conversation because of your experience and practice of pranayama which is vital in the ashtanga yoga process and which the Western students neglect and still pretend that they are ashtanga yogis.

 

===========================

 

Subhash Mittal’s Remark:

 

"I would like to believe that translation from Sanskrit to English and self-realization through meditation are two totally separate topics. We definitely need a thorough understanding of the Sanskrit language to be able to first translate the sutra and then try to interpret what Patanjali might have intended in those very terse and crisp statements. That is the reason that no two translations or interpretations are identical.

 

Michael Beloved’s Response:

You can believe what you like. But I do not see that the translation from Sanskrit to English can be accurate if the self realization through meditation is not in harmony with the system of meditation used by the original author.

 

As far as I am concerned if you learn German for instance you cannot properly translate something written about nuclear physics in German by Einstein unless you are versed in those particular experiments in the practical sense. It is not just a matter of translation. Both factors must be there, your idea which is a thorough understand of the Sanskrit language and the idea of meditation practice on these higher levels as Patanjali was versed in and which he enumerated.

 

A person who is just an expert in Sanskrit language and who has not spent years in meditation does not quality to translate Patanjali and will inevitably mislead readers.

 

Back to physics: If you want to make a nuclear bomb and wish to read something translated by somebody who never did any nuclear research you are quite privileged to do so. But I decline. Let’s be friends anyway.

 

MiBeloved 5 years ago

Ragavan V.s wrote:

To Michael Beloved--Thanks for this information.  I mistook Machavacarya as co-author.  I read this book a year back, though i read many commentaries on Yoga sutra, by various ancient and current authors, i felt, yours were a a lot easier to understand in English.

 

I also read many of your comments in linkedin, but unfortunately, due to my ignorance, I was unable to connect to you. But while reading this thread, i could relate you to YOGA sutra.

 

But I will certainly look at that diagram, suggested by you.

 

Noted your comments, and nice knowing you sir. My heartfelt appreciation to your reply.  Shall be in touch through email. Namaste.

      

Posted by Ragavan V.s.