4, 1 : janmau sadhi mantra tapah samadhijah siddhayah
The attainments listed in the previous section are not only the fruits of the threefold inner discipline, but they are congenital in some, and in others they may follow the right and intelligent use of certain medicinal herbs or of certain mantras - mystic formulae or advice - or they may follow the kindling of the psychic fire.
Perfection or right understanding - not only the siddhis or special psychic powers mentioned in the previous section - seems to be related to one or the other of these factors - janmau - birth itself, asadhi - literally means drugs, the use of mantras - not just one mantra, tapas - austerity, various forms of penance, and samadhi.
Some people are enlightened or are close to enlightenment at birth. One example with which we are all familiar is Ramana Maharsi. In his childhood he had some experiences. From then on, it was one long, unending, uninterrupted self- realisation. Drugs are another means of dealing with the distractions of the mind, but you must know what those drugs are, and how to use them. In the same way, there are special mantras for calming the mind and enabling insight to develop. Even tapas - austerity - standing upside down, hanging by the feet tied to a tree, and so on, has been used. Meditation, concentration, and
samadhi, have all been utilised as means for attaining perfection or self- realisation, not only psychic powers.
With the help of these, a certain altered state of consciousness can be brought about in which the reality is realised. When reality becomes clear, error ceases - because error is not something which exists. For instance, a mirage exists and water exists, but water in the mirage does not exist, has never existed, That it is a mirage is true, that water is water is true, but the seeing of the water in the mirage is error. When you begin to see the mirage as a mirage, nothing goes away - but something has gone. This is a puzzle which each one has to work out.
Nothing has happened, the mirage remains a mirage. There is still the appearance of water there; but the erroneous feeling that there is water has gone. That is all that goes - nothing else need go. When the truth is realised, the error disappears without making any change anywhere. But there is a big change: you do not go to a mirage to have a drink of water. That is the beauty which one has to grasp, by God's Grace.
There is no visible external difference between the enlightened man and the non- enlightened or ignorant man. Both of them see the mirage. But, in the enlightened man, craving is totally absent. If you find craving in a man who talks as if he is enlightened, he only talks as if he is enlightened.
Samadhi itself can lead to perfection. If it does not lead to perfection now, in this life span, what happens? That is suggested in the next Sutra.
4, 2 : jaty antara parinamah prakrtya purat
However, congenital endowments are not accidental, as the incidence of birth is determined by the character or quality with which one's whole being is saturated.
When this body is dropped, that which dwelt in it continues to exist. It takes on another birth, as it were, because the ignorance is not completely gone.
There is a vague idea of what the truth is, but it is still more or less an idea. You are still practising, struggling. You have not reached perfection in samadhi. Probably, in a meditational experience, you have a glimpse of the truth; but when you open your eyes, there is a doubt. If at that point the body drops, your nature is saturated to some extent, and the next birth takes on from there.
People like Ramana Maharsi, who right from birth, as it were, have a spiritual inclination or tendency, inevitably walk the spiritual path, so it looks as though perfection is very close to them.
In Raja Yoga, the practice of samadhi is an ongoing process, ending only in enlightenment. This samadhi, though it is interrupted by all sorts of things, is really not affected by what happens with the body, or to the body, in this birth or in the next birth, because the truth is there always.
4, 3 : nimittam aprayojaksam varana bhadas tu tatah ksetrikavat
To be so saturated does not involve acquiring or adding some new quality; for the transmutation of one's nature is not effected by the introduction of a new cause but by the removal of that which obstructs the realization of that nature. The new practice is a catalyst and is otherwise useless, and people of different natures make different choices. As in agriculture, there is fertility in the seed and the soil, and effort is directed at the removal of the weeds and the pests.
This Sutra is introduced here in order that you may not cling to the rungs of the ladder instead of ascending it, in order that you may not fall in love with the boat and forget to cross the river.
All your struggle and your sadhana is merely an instrumental cause, not a direct cause. It is not as though that, without it, the truth will disappear and the self become unreal. Do not think that all the sadhana that you are doing is of great importance. If you do, you are stuck in that sddhana.
Do not think that sadhana is going to bring you enlightenment. Enlightenment is already there. In accordance with the assets and liabilities that you have brought forward from a previous life span, you choose your path. There seem to be all sorts of distinctions and differences. One person does something, a second does something else, and a third does yet something else, all of them proceeding in the same direction towards enlightenment, self-realisation. All these are really and truly of no consequence whatsoever, though they are necessary.
Here we are caught. You cannot attain enlightenment without these, yet they do not lead you to enlightenment. You hold in front of you a beautiful mirror covered with an inch of dust. You want to look into the mirror, but nothing is seen. When you take a piece of cloth and wipe it, you see your face. You realise that it was not the wiping that created the reflection - the capacity to reflect is there in the mirror, not within the cloth with which you wiped it - but if you had not wiped it, you could not have seen your face. Wiping is only incidental to it. That is what is called nimittam.
We meditate, chant, and study, etc. These are not going to bring about self- realisation; but, without them, no self-realisation is possible. You must give them their due importance without exaggerating and making them the goal, the vital essence. When you see that each person will choose a path that is in conformity with the assets and liabilities brought forward, you develop a tremendous understanding. You do not go about hitting people on their heads, you leave them alone. They are all going towards the same destination.
The practice of yoga is like a gardener putting forth tremendous effort in order to cultivate and make plants grow, but whatever he does is merely an effort to remove the obstructions. The soil contains fertility, the seed contains the plant - he brings these two together; when the plant is about to germinate, he probably removes some weeds, indirectly helping the plant to grow. He can neither grow the plant, nor produce it. The plant is in the seed already. He has no ability to germinate, only the earth has that ability. All that he does is to bring about the right conditions in which what already exists is realised.
Nimittam is an instrument. When you write a letter with your pen, the pen is an instrument in your hands. The pen did not write the letter, but you could not have written a letter without a writing instrument. There again is a very puzzling, paradoxical situation. Without it, you cannot - without you, it cannot. So, from one point of view, the pen is useless for writing a letter. You have to be there; but you must pick up that pen and write the letter. The pen could lie for eternity on the table and it would not write the letter - you could struggle for eternity and not be able to write the letter until you pick up the pen. So, both these extreme views must be avoided by the intelligence.
It is quite possible that you were born a saint, but that will evaporate if something is not done to further it. Just because you were born a saint, you are not absolved from further effort. Of course, if it is really true that you were born a yogi, naturally you will engage yourself further in the yogic path, as long as there is life in the body. What is it that makes one feel that because one performed some miracle as a child, that one is supreme? That was only an instrument's game. The moment you put the instrument down on the table, the letter ceased to be written.
In the same way, the mantra and even drugs are all instruments. People have been discussing this problem ad infinitum because a great man called Aldous Huxley in a book entitled: 'Doors of Perception' has mentioned a drug experience as having been 'up there', 'out there'. Is that true? Can the drug itself give you the experience? It is one of the aids perhaps, and it has to be used intelligently. For instance, if you pick up a pen and start rubbing it with its bottom, no letter could be written. While you are using an instrument, you must know how to use it. There must be full understanding of the advantages, disadvantages, limitations and ability.
Some people may question Aldous Huxley's declaration that a drug is of great use in attaining heightened states of consciousness, but I do not know first hand. I have never experienced any of these. Vaguely in my own mind, I can compare the effect of these drugs to a cup of coffee, for instance. Even in the ashram in Rishikesh, if I wanted to get up and meditate early in the morning or late at night and the mind was dull due to various causes and circumstances, I would take a cup of coffee and sit and meditate. The coffee drives the drowsiness away and you can meditate. If you do not want to take coffee, do some sirsasana or vigorous bhastrika pranayama. Coffee is a drug, shouting kirtan is a mantra, and sirsasana and bhastrika pranayama are tapas. All these things are aids, that's all. But, after having done all this, what you are going to do with the effect only you know. You get up at four o'clock, have a cup of coffee, then you are wide awake. But the coffee or the drug or whatever it is, is not going to put you into meditation.
Perfection is not brought about by these, nor is perfection possible without some kind of effort and practice. Here you are caught. Perfection is not the end result of any process, nor is it independent of any of these. Both are necessary - not in a causal relationship, but in a relationship of the essential and the incidental - the essential being the perfection which is already there, and the incidental being the aids, the help. So, perfection is neither brought about nor created, but the end result.
If something comes into being now, it has to cease a little later. Perfectien or enlightenment is a fact of existence. It is not something which you and I are creating. It is like the reflection in the mirror; it exists at all times. Because of the dust covering it, you are unable to see it. Wipe it and you can see the reflection in the mirror. Why is it that all this effort that we have put into our meditation and our spiritual practice is considered to be aprayojakam - useless except as an aid?
4, 4 : nirmana cittany asmitta matrat
Any attempt to introduce a new transforming influence can only erect one more barrier - as such a construction of the mind-stuff - as the new influence or image is - is obviously and only a product of the ego-sense.
Whatever you put together with the help of your mind is related to your own ego. Please remember that earlier on Patanjali had said, 'Whatever be the concept of self that you may have, it is all put together by the mind and the ego - which is the mind.'
In life itself, everything that happens to us and everything that we do is made possible and inevitable because of this image formation. It is because you have a certain image of yourself that you crave for something. If you do not have an image of yourself as a man, there is no craving for companionship of a woman. If there is no image in oneself of being a woman, there is no craving for a child.
It is of these images that cravings and aspirations are born. For instance, it is because you have an image of yourself as a weak person that you conceive of God as a strong personality. God is omnipotent. Why? Because you are impotent. That is the image you have in your mind. You are unable to achieve what you desire to achieve, and therefore you feel that you are weak. So, having built the image of weakness of the self, you then build another image called omnipotence of God, and you worship God. I am not saying that this worship is good or bad, but it is good to understand it without any prejudice whatsoever.
The mind is constantly restless. This restlessness is also an image that is formed in you. How do you know the mind is restless? Because you think it is restless. Because you have no peace of mind, you form an image that you are restless. It is that image that clamours and aspires for a God who is all peace. You have an image of what a peaceful mind should be. Since you cannot look at the being that you are, you think a completely peaceful mind must be 'like this'. That is already an image. In comparison to that image, you are restless. But comparisons are unavoidable. You see a man sitting peacefully, but you do not know what he is doing within himself. You look at him and think, 'If only I could sit quietly like that.' You have built an image in your mind of what a peaceful state is, or must be. That is what creates restlessness. You become aware of restlessness and so you say, 'Oh my God, I am restless, I have no peace of mind.' And you create an image of God that is absolute peace. I am not saying that the expression 'God is Peace' is not true, but as an image it is deadly. Clinging to one of these images is as good or as bad as clinging to some other image.
Why does the mind build an image at all? The mind builds an image of God to suit its own image of itself. That is the basic problem throughout our life. Even your day-to-day affairs are guided by this. Instead of beating about the bush, Patanjali says, 'Why do you not look within and see where the image is born.' This looking within is meditation. Then suddenly, you discover that in meditation you are building another image. Perhaps that is the only time when the fact that there is a self-image becomes clear, otherwise it is not clear. For instance, even the feeling 'I am a man', is an image. You are not aware of this because you have become reconciled to it. What we call a fact in our waking state is nothing but an image put together by the foolish ignorant mind, and repeatedly affirmed each day. That is how it becomes a reality.
Substituting one image for another image is not going to help us either, because the image is still an image. Changing the hair style does not make a woman a man, or a man a woman. It only leads to a certain amount of confusion. Instead, Raja Yoga suggests, 'Look within and try to see where the image is made. Look at this phenomenon of image building itself.' When you learn to look at it, you are meditating, whether you are sitting quietly with closed eyes, or running around with open eyes.
Incidentally, that was Buddha's realisation, too. On the day of enlightenment, he is reported to have said, 'You builder of images, you will not build any more images - neither an image of enlightenment, nor an image of liberation or salvation.' Even an image of moksa or liberation is a trap. Can we free ourselves completely and totally from all self images?
4, 5 : pravrtti bhede prayojakam cittam ekam anekesam
However many such images one may build within oneself, all these are projected by a single ego-sense in the mind-stuff, though the operations of the diverse successive images may vary, giving the false feeding of methodical and rapid spiritual progress.
The citta - the mind - is only one, but on account of prayojakam - one's nature, one's practice, the same thing appears to be a different experience in different people. One person meditates and sees the Virgin Mary or Jesus Christ. Wonderful, there's no harm in it. Someone else sees Krshna dancing around. That is also wonderful. There is no harm in it. The same citta plays different tricks in different people.
Whatever be your thought, whether it is virtuous or vicious, it is all the play of the mind. One kind of mental activity gives you inner happiness or peace of mind, and so this is considered to be better. Some good thoughts are constructive, and therefore are encouraged because they compel you to promote the welfare of society. If you are thinking positively, thinking of the good of others, you would surely do something about it - so, those good thoughts are exalted. If you go on entertaining vicious thoughts, it is inevitable that those vicious thoughts must be translated into vicious actions, destructive of society - so, they are said to be a bad thing. What is the difference between good and evil here?
From the point of view of a seeker who wants to reach perfection, there is only one simple difference - the spelling. One is g-o-o-d, the other is e-v-i-l. Without totally abandoning evil thoughts, which is a necessary preiminary step, you are getting nowhere. You have not even put your foot on the first rung of the ladder of yoga. But this is said in order to caution you against resting on the fifth rung of the ladder. I have got there, all my evil thinking has been abandoned, now I think God-thoughts only - not only good thoughts. But thoughts are thoughts, whether they are God thoughts, good thoughts, or evil thoughts.
Because you are of a certain nature, your thoughts share that nature. All the thoughts of a man who is a drunkard, a debaucher and a vicious scoundrel, are evil. He is honestly and faithfully manifesting his nature. A swami, a holy man, is honestly and faithfully manifesting his nature. What is the difference? Fire is hot, ice is cold. You do not expect fire to be cool. It is the nature of fire to be hot; it is the nature of ice to be cold. It is the nature of that man to behave in that way. It is the nature of this man to behave in this way.
What do we, as students of yoga who have learned to abandon evil even right from the early yoga practice, learn from this? We learn not to consider ourselves very superior and not to condemn others. That man is merely manifesting his own nature. We should not hold him responsible for that. If you have been walking this path - not only in this birth, but maybe in several previous births - it is natural for you not to think those evil thoughts. So, there is no glory here. Because of different inner equipment, predispositions and natures, if one may call it so, each one thinks differently and has different experiences, but the mind is the same.
4, 6 : tatra dhyanajam anasayam
Hence, the no-image that is born of meditation is the best - because it does not create a receptacle for itself, entrench itself as a real image, and color the mind.
So, instead of hanging on to these experiences produced, put together and created by the mind, the yogi bent on reaching perfection engages himself in this enquiry. The enquiry itself becomes jnana. And, knowing that all constructions are bound to be destroyed - even psychological constructions called doctrines, dogmas, faith, and belief - the yogi steers clear of all those things. If he sees a brilliant vision, he recognises it as one kind of construction which is not going to last, because all that is put together by the mind must eventually be destroyed. So, without resting in it or on it, the yogi's intelligence moves on.
If the mind comes to a rest thinking that this is the truth, and that is not, there the mind is creating a concept of truth, and it is going to rest there. To say, 'I have attained enlightenment,' is stupid nonsense. Your meditation should have no support at all. When the mind feels like resting somewhere, keep going, this is not the goal. The mind is still functioning, still building an image called perfection, enlightenment, God or the self. The understanding of this simple truth enables you to go on. You become aware of those experiences, of heightened states of consciousness, but you go on.
Meditation is meditation only if it leads to the self. But, as the self is not an object, one cannot determine 'This is it'. When there is such determination of the self, that 'This is it,' there is an image, and you are trapped there.
There should be observation without an observer. There should be meditation without a goal of meditation. There is a constant seeking without an object to be sought. There is love without an object to love or to be loved. That is what Raja Yoga is all about.
4, 7 : karma sukla krsnam yoginas trividham itaresam
The yogis' actions, springing from such no-image are therefore neither pure nor impure whereas in the case of others, actions are of three classes, kinds or types - viz., pure, impure and mixed.
In the case of such a yogi, whatever actions take place in his life are colourless and untainted, though in the eyes of the observer such actions appear to be done by him. I am deliberately avoiding the use of the word 'pure'. It is better to phrase it negatively, and say his actions are untainted and without any colour, white or black, because there is no self-image, and therefore there is no aspiration, craving or desire. There is no goal other than life itself, truth itself, consciousness itself.
When the self-image of the yogi has been destroyed, or there is no image, from where do these actions flow? In our case, the actions flow from the image that we have of ourselves, and they are naturally directed towards a goal, an achievement. The achievement is the complement to what we are. We lack something, there is something wanting in us, and we want to fulfill that want, that craving, and therefore we strive. When these things are not there, there is no ego-motivation or image-motivation.
Then, from where do the yogi's actions arise, and what is their destination? That is totally unpredictable. They arise in that power, that consciousness, that energy which gave rise to this whole universe, where the creation of the universe took place. Call it God if you wish. So, only the yogi, in the eyes of others, is a channel for divine will. He does not say, 'I am performing the will of God,' for then there is an image; nor does he say that he is an instrument in the hands of God. He might use the formula, but he does not mean it, because then there is an image. He might or might not use the word 'I'. There were some great yogis who refused to use the word 'I', but that does not mean that they were enlightened.
So, the yogi is one in whom there is no self-image. He is also alive, he is also functioning here in the eyes of others, but his actions are totally uncoloured by likes and dislikes. There is no image to form a relationship with others and, uncoloured by likes and dislikes, there is therefore neither a definition of goodness nor condemnation of evil. You may look at him and say, 'Look what a vicious thing he has done', or 'What a great thing he has done', but so far as he is concerned, these things do not exist. Good and evil do not exist in his case. Therefore he does not incur karma. In our case, our actions - karma - are not only black and white, but also a lot in between. Some actions are diabolical, some very divine, some are human, and some are half animal.
4, 8 : tats tad vipaka nugunanam eva bhivyakttir savananam
The images that are built in the mind and the actions that flow from them color the mind, creating tendencies which manifest when conditions are favorable.
When these actions arise in the self-image, they confirm that image. You cannot work this image formation out, because every time the image is allowed to act in the manner in which it is bound to act, it is being confirmed, and what originally was merely imagination becomes almost real. What was a vague curiosity in the beginning becomes an action and then becomes confirmed as a tendency. Take smoking or drinking, for instance. You might smoke just out of curiosity. Then an image is formed that all important people smoke. This image then craves for a cigarette, which then makes you feel happy or elated. By starting as a curiosity and then being indulged in repeatedly, it becomes a tendency. You cannot avoid this tendency being formed by fighting it. If you are ashamed of your own drinking habits, you will organise a cocktail party!
This tendency cannot be overcomed, either by satisfying it, or by suppressing it. It is not possible to deal with it, unless the whole dynamics of action and reaction is understood. You are compelled to do this, because there is something which says you need it. Something said that this is desirable. Because there was a desire, the object became desirable - it is not the other way around. A thing is not desirable unless you desire it. There is nothing in the world which everyone desires. This refers only to an object, not abstract qualities. It only becomes desirable because you desire it, and you desire it because there is an awareness, a feeling that you lack something. That is the image. Since this self-image is dented, it is looking for a fulfilling complement. If you still cling to the idea that the self-image is dented, imperfect, you try to repair it, make it whole, and that leads to other complications.
Why is there this image at all? Who builds these images, and what is their content and character? Since this enquiry - vicara - is a quest without a goal, and since meditation is an observation without creating the image of an observer, it has nothing whatsoever to hang on to. People get frightened of this. Perhaps for a few minutes you feel that you are falling into nothing. Then you realise that if you are dropping into nothing there is no harm, there is no 'fall'. So, although there may be an initial fear or a frightening experience, that passes away.
This same self-image that we have creates an image called the other. It is not as though the other exists and I create an image of it. If the self-image is not there, the other is not there. Even in the absence of the other, the self-image creates what is called the other. In a dream, a self-image is created. The dream creates within me another thing called me, experienced as the me during the period of the dream; and that dream image creates another one within itself. If that self- image is not there, the 'other' is not there. So, it is this self-image that creates the other, and then establishes a so-called relationship. All actions originate in this funny fictitious relationship. This fact is seen in meditation. Because of the recurrent arising of this phenomenon of the self-image and the other image in meditation, one becomes aware of one's tendencies.
A tendency is a groove, and it is formed by this chain reaction. I do not know if we dream the same dream again and again, but in this thing called the waking state, we tend to cut the same groove again and again. We are looking for the same phenomenon, because in-so-far as the waking state experience is concerned, the self-image is dug in, confirmed. 'I am So-and-so, I am a man, etc.' By repeated confirmation, this is taken as a fact. Even one's own defects and deficiencies are dug in. Since they are rooted, the factors that compose the self-image are also rooted.
You also project the self-image onto what is called the 'other' in the same fashion. A tendency is formed, the same actions are repeated, the same experiences are experienced. When this action is repeatedly performed by the self-image, it is coloured by the self-image and becomes black, white or grey. Unless the actions arise from a 'no image' consciousness, the actions themselves are coloured in various ways. It is the self-image that projects this coloured action towards an assumed relationship, and when this bears fruit, it becomes a tendency.
The fruition of past action - coloured action, action based on the self-image which has matured into a tendency - does not come to an end. This wretched thing keeps on repeating itself, in spite of and unbeknown to you. The tendency takes you unawares. When the condition is ripe, it arises and manifests itself. If you are really and truly aware of this chain reaction, you are able to see that this is not
something natural - not an action that arises from the 'no image' state - but something which arises because of a tendency formed by previous actions committed in a state of ignorance. When you are aware of this, it does not arise, it just bubbles within and does not really become an action; but when you are unaware and the circumstances are favourable, you are taken for a ride.
These tendencies are called vasanas. Vasana is a mental conditioning. In common language it also refers to aromas, scents, smells. If you handle garlic, for instance, the smell remains on your hands for a long time after you have washed them. You try to mask it with some perfume; for a little while it seems as if the garlic smell has gone and the perfume has come. But the perfume wears out and the garlic comes again. Similarly, when circumstances are favourable, the tendency that is hidden within you comes up again.
The yogi is not concerned so much about the reaction of the action that is performed by him in the form of good luck, bad luck, happiness, unhappiness, pain or pleasure. The yogi is seriously concerned with this inner tendency that the action of the self-image generates within himself, because that is what keeps the whole thing going.
4, 9 : jati desa kal vyavahitanam apy anantaryam smrti samskarayor eka rupatvat
The relation between the actions, the tendencies they create, and the manifestation of these tendencies in behavior may be vague: especially when the behavior and its antecedents are separate in time, place, and embodiment - yet the latent impressions - tendencies - and memory are identical in nature.
4, 10 : tasam anaditvam ca siso nityatvat
However, it is difficult to determine their exact operation, and it is futile to analyze them. These memories and these tendencies are beginningless - for hope or desire- to-live is permanent.
4, 11 : hetu phala sraya lambanaih samghritatvad esa bhave tad abhavah
Yet, since these tendencies have a cause-and-effect relationship with ignorance - that is, they are the result of ignorance and also the cause of its perpetuation - they disappear when the cause - ignorance of the spiritual truth - is dispelled, and vice versa; they support and promote each other and are bound to each other.
All these, including this chain reaction, are beginningless in time. So, do not try to trace them to their beginning to find out when they commenced. That is one remarkable and wasteful pastime we indulge in when we psycho-analyse ourselves. We try to isolate this tendency and trace its origin back to childhood. It is a useless game, because there you are assuming that this tendency has a specific origin in time.
Ignorance and self-image are ageless. From one point of view, one may say that the child is innocent and that all the other bits and pieces of conditioning are infused into the child right from birth; or, from another point of view, before birth, there was a self-image which gave rise to this birth. It is another form of self-image. The infant is not aware of its own self-image for the time being, just as in sleep you are not aware of this self-image. It does not mean that it has gone. It has not, because it wakes up. It is the self-image that wakes you up from sleep and it is the self-image that gives rise to birth, to the conception itself. It is the self-image that is floating around, looking for a vehicle in which to embody itself. So, when we try to analyse the present problem and take it to its origin in time, we are frustrated.
Ignorance is beginningless, the self-image is beginningless, and the relationship that the self-image creates is also beginningless. The experience of pain and pleasure is beginningless, and therefore desire, craving, and hope, are also beginningless. But there is a beginning in another sense - one is able to understand the origin of this chain reaction - which is ignorance - not in time, but in truth. One is able to look at this chain reaction, see, and understand the links in the chain, and arrive at the origin of this whole scheme.
One depends upon the other. Why does the self-image arise? Because of ignorance, because you do not know what you are, or who you are. Can you go back on those links - not in time, but immediately? If you can, you see the whole pattern; immediately you see that there is constant hope, craving, and desire, and that desire arises because of the experience of pleasure and pain. The desire is for prolonging that pleasure and avoiding this pain.
The experience of pleasure and pain arises on account of the relationship that you have with the 'other', whether the other is an object, another human being, or psychological experience - all these constitute the 'other'. Because there is this contact with the other, and some experience arose from that contact, the experience is divided. So, what is the cause of experience?
The immediate cause of experience is the relationship, and the cause of this relationship is the creation of the other, the experience of the 'me'. This 'me' creates the other, and the rest of the other things follow. What is the self-image? You do not know, and because you do not know who you are or what you are, the whole wretched thing started from there.
This you can become aware of immediately, without linking it with time, without saying either, 'I will do it the day after tomorrow,' or, 'All these arose twenty-five million years ago'. Whereas in time these things are beginningless, in truth they have a beginning. That is the root of the whole thing - ignorance. When the ignorance is dispelled, the self-image is dispelled, contact is dispelled, and experience, hope, and frustration all come to an end. That is liberation.
4, 12 : atita nagatam svarupato sty adhva bhedad dharmanam
But that does not imply that the past - the memory and the tendencies - is false and that the future is abolished - by their disappearance. The past and the future exist in reality, in their own form - because the characteristics and the natural differences of countless beings follow different paths.
When you plant a seed, a tree grows out of that. The tree was in the seed only potentially. In relation to the plant that you see now, the seed was the past, and the full-grown tree is the future. In the young child, there is the potential adult. The adult has the potential of old age and death. There is the past in reality - in its own form. When you say the past is, it is not as if it is present physically now; but the past is the present now, as a memory. It is not present as it was present when it was present, but the past is present as a memory. You cannot object to that, you cannot sweep it away or pretend it does not exist. It is a very clever and beautiful argument.
The future also exists in the present as a potentiality. How do you know? You see that some seeds look alike; some seeds even look like cockroach droppings. You do not know which is a seed and which is something else. When you throw them into the soil, the cockroach droppings do not grow, but the others do, because the potentiality of germination was in the seeds, and not in the cockroach droppings. Anagatam - the future, svarupato - in its own form. Do not look for the tree in the seed. It is not there, but it is potentially present.
One cannot deny the existence of the past and future; because, when one observes nature, one sees that there is growth. Growth implies change, and change implies moving from one state to the other. In that which has grown, there are the growth symptoms and there are the signs of growth. This was a child, this was a young person. You are able to see that. The symptoms of having grown up are seen in the adult, and the symptoms of the future are there in that person, as potentiality.
How do we know that the future is present as a potential and the past is present as memory? All things do not grow in the same way. As you go on contemplating this statement, meditating upon it, it grows more and more beautiful. All things do not grow in the same way. This is how he grows, this is how she grows, this is how this grows. When this is truly seen, all your prejudices disappear in an instant. So, by observing the different patterns of growth, one realises that there is something called the past and something called the future.
The nature of one leads in one direction and the nature of another one leads in another direction. Is this direction good and that direction bad? Patanjali says, 'Leave it alone.' Simply recognise that, since these distinctions do exist, they point to the simple truth and fact that the past and the future exist in their own-form. It is possible that potentially you are supposed to be a holy man. If you are, then you will become a holy man. It is possible that potentially you must become a violent aggressive person. There is no problem there. If you realise that this is what was potentially there, and this is what has become manifest, there is neither glory in it nor a fault in it.
Society may applaud you or punish you. That has nothing to do with you. The potentiality having manifested, 'I' has nothing to do with it. You go out into the garden, plant the seeds and do all sorts of fantastic things. Then a cyclone comes and pulls them down, or some vandals come, pick all the fruits and take them away. Why should you be worried? There was the potentiality of action in your arms and that potentiality has been made manifest. What you had to do, what you could potentially do, has been done.
4, 13 : te vyaktta suksma gunatmanah
These differences are of the quality of the beings, not of the being itself. And, they may be either subtle or obvious.
These inherent distinctions could be apparent, gross, very easily detected and perceived, or they could be subtle. The differences exist only in their qualities. There is a slight distinction here, but not in the essential being. Fundamentally, we are all one, there is no problem about that. As living beings, we are all one. But as human beings, we differ from animals and plants. As plants, all are equal, but in certain qualities, each plant differs from the other. As human beings, we are one, but as 'you' and 'I', there is some difference and some distinction. These distinctions do not belong to our fundamental essence as human beings, but to something else, to the individual. Not your nature, but your quality is different from mine. I am a human being, you are also a human being. There is no difference there, but in our qualities, we are slightly different. You have a certain quality, I have a certain quality. Neither that quality, nor this quality is necessarily good or evil, but in relation to something else it may be considered good or evil. Our essential nature is not tainted by these qualities.
4, 14 : parinamai katvad vastu tattvam
Surely, the material world exists; though it is seen that it constantly undergoes change, there is some substance, which thus undergoes change.
You exist as an individual. Even that is not denied. You and I are very similar at a certain level, and very dissimilar at a certain other level. It is not as though you and I are completely one. This is the beauty of the Yoga Sutras, in contra- distinction to the other Vedantic texts, which say that individualities are nonsense. Patanjali says, 'You exist as an individual.' How do you know? Because I grow into something other than you, something which is not you. The individuality is there, and it is that individuality which continues to undergo change. For instance, one individuality blossoms as a teacher or a doctor, another individuality becomes an artisan. Just as you are an individual, so the other person is also an individual. Here your quality flourishes, there the other quality flourishes.
Accept the truth, but do not blindly extend it to cover whatever you want to cover. You will recognise the reality of what it is, but rigorously train and discipline yourself not to go beyond that. One individuality goes that way, the other individuality goes this way. Although they are apparently different, fundamentally they are one and the same.
4, 15 : vastu samye citta bhedat tayor vibhakttah panthah
The world of matter is entirely neutral and homogeneous. Differences - like good and evil, beauty and ugliness - are perceived because such differences are created by viewpoints oriented to different directions or goals.
The world outside exists, but it does not come and hit you. The objects of the world do not proclaim anything.Scientifically, it is possible to declare that a carpet is definitely different from a table fan. But the carpet does not say, 'I am a carpet,' and the table fan does not say, 'I am a table fan'. When you extend it a little further, no object in the world says, 'I am good,' and definitely no object says, 'I am bad'. A lion lies there as quietly and as beautifully as a cow lies somewhere else. Nature has not written on the forehead of the lion, 'This is a vicious animal, do not go anywhere near,' nor written on the forehead of the cow, 'This is beautiful, worship it'. They are neutral, and silent. Both these objects - which are real and diverse, one very different from the other - are samye, neutral.
They are what they are - citta bhedat - but the distinction arises in your mind. In the original form in which the word citta was used, it seems to refer to undivided consciousness. Here this citta is used in the broad sense of 'mind', a mind that has all the conditioning in it, that is polluted - citta bhedat. Your mind is different from my mind. Therefore, the object is seen, not only differently, but from a different point of view - vibhaktah panthah.
Now we have two things. First of all, there is an external objective distinction: a leaf is different from a carpet. Secondly, there is an internal, subjective division. Whereas objectively two carpets are the same - kashmir prayer mats, for instance - the conditioned mind thinks that one is better than the other, more elegant than the other. The subjective distinction is based upon citta bhedat ii my mind is different from yours.
Why is my mind different from yours? My mind is conditioned in a different way. My background is different, my upbringing is different, and my scale of values is different. The culture in which I have been brought up is different from yours. Therefore my culture has conditioned my mind to look upon 'this' as civilisation and 'that' as barbarism. My upbringing, training, and education say that this is bad and that is good. In western culture, a glass of whisky is an insignia of civilisation, and smoking ganja is terrible. One is accepted socially and the other is not. In other cultures, whisky is considered a greater evil than ganja.
So, your point of view distorts the perception of the object still further. Then why do we not say that it is the perceiving mind alone that determines the existence of the object? Just as one says that 'this is beautiful', 'that is ugly', it is possible for one to say that this is a carpet only because one recognises it as a carpet. 'If the mind did not recognise that as a carpet, it would cease to be a carpet,' says the objector. This is another extreme argument.
In answer to that, Patanjali says:
4, 16 : na cai ka cittatantram vastu tad apramanakam tada kim syat
An object or a substance in this world is not dependent for its existence on one mind. Else, would it not cease to be if that mind does not cognize it?
The object does not depend upon one mind. Supposing your mind is deranged and you become completely mad. Will this carpet cease to be a carpet at that time, or not? You can go on taking this to the other absurd extreme. If you become raving mad and start cutting the carpet and eating it, does it suddenly become food and not carpet? Supposing you embrace a statue, does it become a friend and cease to be a statue? Thus the mind may become temporarily insane, but the object remains what it is.
There is of course the famous question: 'If a tree fell in the Himalayas 200 miles away from all human habitation, did it make any sound at all?' Pataniali says, 'Yes.' Independent of your viewpoint, the object exists, and independent of your hearing ability, that which exists, exists. Vasistha might come in and say that that is because the cosmic consciousness recognises it. Here Patanjali says that things exist in themselves whether or not you, the individual, comprehend them. That is, even before the TB virus was seen or detected by the scientists, it already existed, it always existed. Even before the laws of nature were discovered by the scientists, the laws themselves were there as a reality. Nobody could question that.
So, the existence of the object does not depend upon one mind comprehending the object.
4, 17 : tad uparaga peksitvac cittasya vastu jnata jnatam
However, a particular object or substance is comprehended or ignored in accordance with whether the mind is or is not colored by that object, and is therefore attracted or repelled by that substance. Hence the quality or the description of the substance is dependent on the mind: whereas its existence is independent of it.
Why do we become aware of some objects and remain ignorant of other objects? The objects exist, our diverse minds exist, and the different points of view also exist. When we say 'different minds', it only means different points of view. Objects become known to you or remain unknown to you. They are not dependent upon your mind, but their qualities are dependent upon your perception. They become known to you when you establish a relationship with them; they remain unknown to you when you do not establish such a relationship, when you remain indifferent.
There are billions of people on earth whom you do not know. Their existence is of no consequence to you, and therefore you do not know of them. Once their existence, or the existence of these diverse objects, means something to you, once you begin to like them and depend upon them, then you will know them. This is a fairly scientific and realistic appraisal of the world and the objects, as well as an appraisal of the subjective mind and its modifications, points of view and conditioning. Patanjali points out that these two constantly interact one on the other.
4, 18 : sada jnatas citta vrttayas tat prabhoh purusasya parinamitvat
All such changes, colorings and modifications of the mind are always known to the lord of the mind, the indwelling intelligence, since the intelligence is changeless.
Objects keep on changing. First there is the seed, then the little sapling and then the big tree. That goes on in what is called the external world, and internally also all sorts of changes take place. What you ignored at one point, you recognise now; what you liked at one point, you dislike now; what you disliked at one point, you like now. It seems to be a totally disorderly situation, and yet the mind or the intelligence within the mind, or beyond the mind, cannot function in a state of confusion.
There cannot be orderly, predictable growth. Yet, all that we have been discussing so far implies an orderly predictable growth. Even in the earlier chapters, change was discussed as predictable, because it follows a certain pattern - a certain growth pattern for a tree, a certain growth pattern for a man or a woman. All these potentialities are inherent, and the manifestation of the potential demands orderly growth, otherwise there is no sense or order in creation. Every day the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. There is an order in this universe, in spite of the fact that the world keeps changing and the mind keeps changing. Yet, all this does not lead to perpetual confusion, because all these changes or modifications in the mind, in the citta, are forever known to some intelligence. These citta vrtti are your own mental modifications or moods. Citta vrtti can also be translated into 'the mind's effort at measuring the external world'. A concept is something with which the mind measures what it sees. (see I. 2)
First of all, there is an acceptance of the ignorance of the external world. What the world is, we do not know. The mind measures the world in terms of its needs. If you are a botanist, when you look at that tree, you are looking at it for the botanical names, the properties and so on. When a dietician looks at that, she says, 'Ah, there are plenty of avocados, that's good protein'. Nobody is seeing the tree for what it is.
Now, by whom are all these games that go on in the mind known? They are known by prabhoh purusa. What is purusa. That which is behind the ego, that intelligence that says, 'I am Swami Venkatesananda,' that which rests in this body, is prabhoh purusa. That purusa is not deceived by the mind and its thoughts, its measurements, its vrtti or its moods. That lord - purusa, soul or intelligence within - observes and knows all these goings-on in the mind, because he does not change. So, here the master says that these citta vrtti - mental modifications or thoughts and notions which arise and fall in the citta - are known to the purusa, or the spirit - whichever you wish to call it - from moment to moment. The intelligence within that shines without undergoing any change and is absolutely steady - whether you are awake, asleep, dreaming, building castles in the air, thinking that you are thinking, or thinking that you are meditating - is absolutely steady.
Prabhu is like water in the ocean. Citta vrtti, being like the waves, are rising and falling all the time. It is not possible for one wave to observe another wave, because, by the time it is collapsing, the next one is rising, But, to the water, all these waves are known. Imagine that the water has tremendous intelligence and powers of observation. Water knows from moment to moment how many waves there are, how these waves rise, exist and fall. Though waves rise and fall, water does not undergo any change at all. What water is in relation to the waves in the ocean, this intelligence is in relation to all these modes and moods and thoughts that arise and fall in the mind.
4, 19 : na tat savbhasam drsyatvat
Surely, it cannot be said that the mind is self-luminous and can know itself; it - its changes and modifications - is perceived only by the inner light or the indwelling intelligence.
It looks as though it is the mind that knows, that thinks, that has knowledge. But the master says that it shines because of an intelligence within, that it is that intelligence that really knows all this. Why? Does the mind not have the power to know? Patanjali says, 'No.' The mind itself is known by the intelligence within, so that you are able to observe what goes on in the mind. As long as you are thinking, the observer is also the mind - or one thought observes another thought, one wave observes another wave. By the time the observer wave is rising, the observed wave is collapsing. So, the observer wave says, 'Oh, I looked into myself, all is quiet now.' Why? Now, instead of the observed wave, you have replaced it with an observer wave. If you are angry and you try to observe that thought, because you have created a new wave in the mind called the observer, the observing wave seems to have collapsed - though it is still there.
Thinking about thought, observing the mind itself with the mind, is of no use. The mind itself is an object of observation to this inner intelligence. The mind is like a mirror, it seems to shine, to reflect, but in itself it has no power at all. It shines only in the light borrowed from this inner intelligence.
4, 20 : ekasamaye co bhaya navadharanam
Nor, can it be said that the mind is simultaneously both the perceiver and the perceived, the observer and the observed. For, then there would not be rational comprehension.
Is it possible, asks someone, for this inner intelligence to know the mind, and the mind to know the object? Here, Pataniali says that is not possible, it is terribly silly. Who is the observer now? Are there a string of observers? If the mind observed the external object, and the intelligence observed the mind, the mind could cheat the observer, the intelligence could cheat the mind. There would be confusion and chaos - whereas we see that there is no such chaos in life. Life goes on smoothly, there is order in the functioning of the intelligence.
This means that there is only one real observer - the intelligence, the witness. It is that intelligence which is the witness of the mind and of the world, which is not involved in the mental modifications - the change that the mind undergoes, and which does not undergo the change that the world undergoes. It is this intelligence that links the mind with the object. In other words, that intelligence is one and indivisible and, like the waves arising in the one mass of water called the ocean, the thought arises here, the object arises there.
Thus the world and the mind are not two eternally separate entities, but two aspects of one cosmic totality, very much like what goes on in dream. In dream, you create yourself and also others, and that 'yourself' in the dream talks to and plays with the others whom you have created, treats some as enemies and some as friends. That is what is suggested here. There is this inner intelligence which is undivided. At one point, it is the mind which thinks, which observes, which sees the objects outside, and which measures. Because it is ignorant of their real nature, it creates notions and concepts about them. All this happens in this undivided inner intelligence, which is uninvolved in both the changes that take place in the mind and in the external world of objects. That is cosmic intelligence; it is what it is, for ever and ever.
If the mind itself is considered the source of knowledge and understanding, if you think that there is nothing other than the mind, then there is no comprehension. If you consider that it is the mind that knows the world and itself, there is no understanding. This Sutra merely says that if the mind is both the perceiver and the perceived, the observer and the observed, there is no comprehension only hallucination. If it is possible for one to analyse or to understand the mind with the mind, it is like water being diluted by water. Nothing happens; yet, there is a tremendous illusion of a comprehension.
This Sutra is also a serious blow to most of the techniques that people adopt - meditation, science of the mind, and self-understanding, etc. Patanjali says it is impossible. One can see this in one's spiritual or religious practice. It is the mind which conjures up an image called God, chews it, experiences it, sees it and pats its own back, saying, 'I have seen God'. Much of what goes by the name of religious experience, as well as hallucination, falls into this category. The mind thinks that it is able to know, to understand. As a matter of fact, even our normal emotional experiences fall into this category. One must understand that what is a painful experience is nothing other than what the mind itself regards as a painful experience, and then suffers from. Who is it that created it, that named it a painful experience, that has converted an experience into a painful experience? The mind.
We discussed in a previous Sutra that the world in itself is a neutral object. It is the moods of the mind that determine whether these experiences or objects are painful or pleasant, happy or unhappy. That applies even to your own psychological experiences. What are they, except what the mind has decided to create within itself? For instance, you dislike this experience, you hate it, and it becomes painful from your point of view. Since you are involved in it, it hurts you. If the mind decides that another is a pleasant experience, then it becomes a pleasant experience, otherwise it does not. The same mind says: 'I am experiencing pain or pleasure.' It is a vicious circle, and therefore there is no comprehension of the reality. You are experiencing, chewing your own ideas; you are a cannibal. The thing itself is not experienced. One does not know what it is.
It is possible for observation to take place without creating an observer in the mind. The mind being a mere reflecting medium - something which receives an impression of the image or the object - it reflects the world. There is no observer here. The mind goes on changing its moods, the object goes on changing its shape, and there is an observer of the whole lot. That observing intelligence is supreme. It is a mysterious connecting link, the substratum for both the object as well as the mind. It is like the sun that shines on the mirror that is reflected on the wall. The light belongs to the sun, there is only one light. The mirror is a reflector, not the source of light.
4, 21 : citta ntara drsye buddhi buddher atiprasangah smrti samkaras ca
If it is assumed that there are two minds the observer and the observed - this would result in logical absurdity - since both are based on the same intelligence, who designates the distinction - and also confusion of memory or universal schizophrenia, which is not found to be the case.
If you think you have two completely different minds, one overseeing the other, one controlling the other, one directing the other, then there may be such a terrible confusion that there would be universal schizophrenia. Smrti samkaras ca is 'a confusion of memory'. Which mind is going to receive what kind of impression? But we are unable to function intelligently or sanely in such a condition, because it is not the real condition.
It is the experience of everyone that this inner intelligence is undivided and indivisible and therefore, in it, there is observation without an observer. The mind is an observed object. Just as you are able to see another, even so the moods of the mind are also observed. One is able to say, 'My mind is disturbed, dull, confused or clear,' so the mind itself becomes an object of observation.
4, 22 : citer apratisamkramayas tad akara pattau sva buddhi samvedanam
The undivided intelligence or homogeneous consciousness in which there is no movement of thought is aware of its own enlightened or awakened nature on account of its awareness of the apparent movement of thought. There is paradoxical movement in non-movement, which is the total intelligence.
Suddenly Patanjali uses another word. One who studies these Sutras has to take note of the special Sutra where a new word or concept is introduced. Citta can be - and has been - used both in terms of the substratum for the mind or the undivided intelligence, and also for the ordinary mind or the individualised consciousness. Now suddenly Patanjali uses the word - 'citer'. This citi, in contra- distinction to citta, is intelligence. One has to understand these words and, suited to the context, one has to study and meditate deeply upon these Sutras and then arrive at a proper understanding.
Citti is consciousness, undivided and indivisible intelligence. Thus it encompasses, synthesises, and links the object with the mind. Let us go back to the mirror. The sun shines on the mirror, the mirror directs a beam of light onto the wall, and the light links all these three. What are the three? The three are one. The same light is reflected in the mirror and projected onto the wall. Somehow there seems to be a link, but the link is also light. It is not as though there is one light there, another light in the mirror here and a projected light in between. The light is in effect one, single, and indivisible. If you obstruct that light, the mirror becomes dead, useless, and the object is not illumined.
In this indivisible intelligence, the mind seems to shine as if independent, and it seems to have the power of comprehension. It seems to be an apparent reality; but that is not so. When it faces this inner light, it seems to have a luminosity of its own, and in that luminosity the external object is seen.
All these are dependent upon this one, single, undivided, and indivisible inner intelligence. In this inner intelligence, there seems to arise an entity called the mind, which is not an entity totally independent of this inner intelligence. It reflects this inner intelligence in such a way that it seems as though that mind itself is intelligence. That intelligence comprehends a thing called an external object, projects its own ideas, its own notions and its own definitions upon it, and then says, 'I know this to be So-and-so.' What sees? It is this inner intelligence that really sees. That, being consciousness, is always conscious, ever aware.
Whether the mirror is turned towards the sun or away from the sun, the sun always shines. Whether the mind functions - thinking, feeling, or experiencing - or whether it goes fast asleep, that intelligence is always there. If you and I are conversing with each other, you are listening and I am talking, and the mind is very active. In that state, obviously this mind-mirror is facing this inner light, this intelligence. Therefore, the intelligence is reflected in the mind, enabling it to function - even to feel that it is an independent entity capable of knowing and understanding an object. Then later we fall asleep; the mind covers itself with a veil and goes to sleep. But that inner intelligence is awake even then. The sun never sets; it is the earth that turns around. Even so, this inner intelligence is forever awake, forever alert, forever intelligent, forever conscious. It is always aware, it is awareness. Why does it shine? It shines because it is awareness.
How can that which is one, be experienced at all? It cannot be experienced as an experience. Only because it is of the nature of awareness can it be aware of itself. Since the very nature of the reality is awareness, there is awareness. In the state of enlightenment - if it can be called so - the awareness is not aware of itself as an object, but there is awareness. If at night you want to see something, you light a candle or a light, and in that light you see the object. If your child has dropped a candle on a bundle of clothes in the next room and you realise that there is a fire, do you take a candle to go and look at that? Without the use of another light, the burning bundle of clothes announces, 'I am here'. All that you do is merely follow the light to its source. That is dhyana, meditation.
Meditation is not making that an object. The self, or this pure awareness, shines by its own light, and the attention merely follows that, and there it is. It is not seen as an object, it is seen as that which is. In that light, you imagine that itself to be an object. You are the light, that is the light, between both is the light; yet you thought it was something else. That light is the truth or the reality which absorbs the 'you' and the 'me', the subject and the object. 'Absorb' is the wrong word. To go back to the example of the handkerchief, the cloth does not absorb the two ends; but if you see these two ends as two ends, and suddenly look into the middle, these two ends seem to have got into the cloth.
What exists is what existed and what will exist. What is now gone is that which never was. There is only one cloth, but you saw two ends in it. When you realise that there was only one cloth, what happened to the two ends? They are still there, not as ends of the cloth but as the cloth.
4, 23 : drastr drsyo parakttam cittam sarvartham
The same mind takes on the role of the observer and the very same mind then observes the coloring of the mind which becomes the observed - the subject and the object; it is indeed everything. Hence the self is but an idea.
Now comes the final thing. Enlightenment is not the result of what you do, but it does not happen without you doing what you are doing. I do not know how the Christians interpret this saying of Jesus, which is exactly the same, 'Knock and it shall be opened.' The door does not open if you do not knock, and the door does not open because you knock. Do not think that when you knock that somebody else must open it. The same thing can be said of grace. Grace by its very definition does not depend upon your deservedness. If you deserve his affection, and he gives it to you, that is business exchange. But when you do not deserve and still he is affectionate towards you, that is grace. This was also said by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. But that should not lead you to feel that God's Grace will come. It may not! So, you have to knock. You have to practise yoga, meditation, and all the rest of it.
Enlightenment is there already, because it is the subject which has no object. There is another beautiful description of this consciousness as neither subject nor object. Back to the example of the handkerchief again. Here is a piece of cloth. This is one end of the cloth and this is another end. I am holding one end with my left hand, and one end with my right hand. Can you see the two ends? Apparently this end is the subject and the other end is the object. Of course, when this becomes the subject, that becomes the object; but there is no end at all, it is just cloth.
Now Vasistha says that what is the reality is something between the subject and the object. But it is not something between the subject and the object, because, if you say it is between here and between there, then you are able to take it out. This is not possible, because that is also included in it. The subject and the object are also included in consciousness. These two ends are also included in this cloth. It is not as though the end is there and then cloth starts from somewhere else. So, between the subject and the object is the reality; and in the reality there is no subject and no object.
In that reality, all these experiences arise and fall. When an experience arises in this, that experience is accompanied by its opposite. When there is an experience of pleasure, there is at the same time an experience of pain. If you drop a big rock in a swimming pool, a wave is created, and right next to it there is a hole. When you build a brick or mud house, you are digging a hole somewhere. So, any of these dualistic notions carries the opposite with it, and therefore there is no opposite.
Here is a piece of paper. This side is facing me, that is the opposite side. All our life, we are trying to have one side, not the other. You cannot do that. If I want this side, that side also comes with it. You can even do something very clever. There are two sides; if you take half of these two, it will be one! But if you take a sharp knife and cut it in half, you have four sides now. This is what we do when we try to solve our problems. When you are looking for a thing called pleasure, pain comes with it; and you do not want that pain. So, you cut that into half and create four more, for the simple reason that this unity that combines or links all this, is the truth.
4, 24 : tad asamkhyeya vasanabhis citram api parartham samhatyakaritvat
Though the mind is motivated in its actions by numerous and diverse tendencies, in reality, it exists and functions for another because it is able to function in conjunction with the undivided indwelling intelligence. The mind does not exist apart from that intelligence and the diverse tendencies.
4, 25 : visesa darsina atmabhava bhavana vinivrttih
One who sees this completely and clearly is freed from the false and imaginary notion of self.
4, 26 : tada vivekanimnam kaivalya pragbharam cittam
Then the whole mind flows towards wisdom and the realization of complete freedom or liberation.
4, 27 : tac chidresu pratyaya ntarani samskarebhyah
It is possible, during such periods when this awareness of this freedom is interrupted there arise other thoughts on account of the mind's past habits of thinking.
4, 28 : hanam esam klesavad ukttam
These habit-moulds are also to be treated as sources of psychic distress or disturbance and got rid of in the manner described already.
4, 29 : prasamkhyane py akusidasya sarvatha viveka khyater dharma meghah samadhih
Where there is no interest in or attraction whatsoever even for the highest kind of intellectual knowledge and experience and where there is uninterrupted self- awareness there comes a state of enlightenment, which is like a cloud that showers virtue or order.
4, 30 : tatah klesa karma nivrttih
When thus order is restored in the mind and therefore in behavior, all actions that favor psychic distress are effortlessly avoided.
4, 31 : tada sarva varana malapetasya jnanasya nantyaj jneyam alpam
Then, since all the veils have been removed and all the impurities have been destroyed, there is infinite knowledge - little remains to be known or experienced - or, the objects of knowledge or experience are seen to be conditioned, finite and worthless.
4, 32 : tatah krtarthanam parinamakrama samaptir gunanam
Thus, they who have realized this have fulfilled their mission in life. And the beginningless succession of changes of the qualities or characteristics, that was falsely assumed to be related to the self which itself was the first notion - comes to an end. Or, the succession of changes of qualities which have reached the fulfillment of their purpose comes to an end.
4, 33 : ksana pratiyogi parinama paranta nirgrahyah kramah
What is regarded as continuous succession is only a series of individual and independent moments. When the last moment is not apprehended as being part of a continuum, the false notion of succession and therefore of time comes to an end.
There is no sequence in time. Sequence in time is a misnomer, an illusion. By contemplating the non-sequentiality in time, you see that each moment is an independent moment, totally unrelated to the past and the future.
There are two completely different approaches to a problem. One is to solve it - you may have to solve it - but there are other situations in which it is not possible to solve it. But it is possible to dissolve it, to see exactly what it is. When the problem is dissolved, there are no psychological or emotional hang-ups resulting from that. Then our relationships will be smooth. To dissolve it, is to deflate it - in other words, it is not invested with importance. So, in other words, both of us independently decide that it is unimportant.
First of all, the problem becomes important when the memory stores it. The events themselves are not stored. Each act is an independent act, unrelated to the previous one, but the memory starts piling these up. It is then that it becomes heavy. For instance, the hunger that we experienced just before lunch is just one day's hunger. We have experienced hunger every day for the past years, but that does not add up to a cumulative effect of hunger today. So, the body intelligence is capable of dealing only with one problem, the problem that is right in front of it now.
The body intelligence is only capable of spontaneous action. It is not capable of dealing with an accumulated effect.
4, 34 : purusartha sunyanam gunanam prati prasavah kaivalyam svarupa pratistha va citisakttir iti
The qualities and the characteristics of a person have no goal nor motivation any more. They return to their cause, ignorance! There emerges creative independence. The undivided cosmic intelligence, which is omnipotent regains as it were its own identity.