Yoga-Darsana: Sutras with the Commentary of Vyasa

cannot be said to be either pure or endless'. The objection would have held good if the sentient faculty The Purusha or pure consciousness took upon itself the various forms etc. But such is not the fact; it is the Intellect original: "Buddhi", the internal organ, which assumes the various forms of the objects of sense, and presents these as such to the sentient faculty, which latter being by its very nature immobile, is untouched by these. The possibility of such cognition by a Faculty itself untouched by the objects, will be explained later on.

"For this reason etc."—From here begins the application of the definition to Unconscious Meditation Asamprajnata Samadhi, the highest state of focus where even the seed of thought is absent.

"Seed-less"—devoid of the seeds of Birth, life, and experience etc.

The definition of Yoga then comes to be this: Yoga is that particular state of the internal organ, in which its functions (in the form of Right Knowledge original: "Pramâna" and the rest) have been suppressed.

The internal organ being in that condition—and as such there being a complete absence of objects—what is the character of the Spirit original: "Purusha"—being as it is of the nature of the cognition of the Intellect original: "Buddhi"?

Reply:—

Sutra (3):—Then there is an abiding of the spectator in its own form.

Commentary:—"The abiding in its own form" is then, as in beatitude The state of liberation or Kaivalya (identical with) the sentient faculty. In the (ordinary) waking state however, the sentient faculty, though being the same, is not (exactly) the same.

**Notes:—**The present Sutra is introduced in order—(1) to show the motive for the said Yoga, (2) to complete the definition of Yoga, and (3) to show the unchanging character of the Spirit.

The sense of the question may be thus rendered, in the words of Vijnana Bhikshu A 16th-century philosopher and commentator on Yoga and Vedanta: "When the internal organ is in the condition of Abstract Meditation, then in what character does the Spirit stand—being as it is of the form of the cognition of the Intellect, i.e. its witness? Does it even then, as in the ordinary waking state, stand in the form of illumination original: "prakâs'a",—its non-perception being due to the absence of objects? or does it then become, like a log of wood, non-illuminating?" The aphorism replies, admitting the former of these two alternatives.