I read the version with commentary by Swami Satchidananda. Most of these notes are related to his commentary. From the Introductions:
"Its goal is nothing less than the total transformation of a seemingly limited physical, mental, and emotional person into a fully illumined, thoroughly harmonized and perfected being from an individual with likes and dislikes, pain and pleasures, successes and failures, to a sage of permanent peace, joy, and selfless dedication to the entire creation."
But is this the right path? Where is the line between trusting and cautious, between compassion and having your own needs met, between acceptance of diverse belief, and upholding your own values? What are my values?
I have always been a person of great passion - is it possible to adopt the yogic path and maintain that passion? Or shall I try to find moderation in this too? What would that look like?
"Truth is one. Paths are many."
We all seek purpose, love, stability, honor, trust, excitement. But can I be convinced that my utopia is the same as everyone else's? We do all have different values, and part of recognizing and accepting those different values, may be exploring different truths.
From Book One: Portion on Contemplation
"The entire outside world is based on your thoughts and mental attitude. The entire world is your own projection. Your values may change within a fraction of a second. Today you may not even want to see the one who was your sweet honey yesterday. If we remember that, we won't put so much stress on outward things.
"That's why yoga does not bother much about changing the outside world. As the mind, so the person; bondage or liberation are in your own mind. If you feel you are bound, you are bound. If you feel you are liberated, you are liberated. Things outside neither bind nor liberate you; only your attitude toward them does that."
I'm having trouble between these ideas. On the one hand, I definitely agree that our thoughts have the potential to shape our perceived realities. Studies of biases clearly show that we have profound and often unconscious impact on our perceptions of the world. In general, we have the power to train our brains to attain certain states and alter our perceptions.
On the other hand, I still believe in an objective, external reality (albeit while acknowledging that we will never have perfect access to the knowledge thereof). I fundamentally seek to change the outside world for the better. Because, while I have the privilege to be highly educated, to be loved, to express myself, to study yoga, not everyone has those things. I want to impact other peoples' lives in a positive way. And I believe that is only possible if I am passionate about changing the world. (Maybe, on the contrary, it is only possible if I truly adopt the Yogic path and cease judgment of good and bad. But my intuition objects to this idea.) Moreover, our minds do have to make decisions constantly ("will I eat salad or steak for lunch today?"). That is unavoidable. Attempting to make as few decisions as possible, will leave me a robot. I would strongly prefer to take ownership of myself, my choices, my actions. Maybe this is an illusion. Maybe there is no free will. Maybe I am overbearing and controlling because I still fundamentally feel insecure in the world around me. Certainly, the more secure I've felt in the world, the less controlling I have become. This requires more thought.
The biggest objection I have to this idea, is that nothing in the outside world can torture you without your consent. This is a common idea throughout history, and one that my brain is fundamentally unable to understand. The worst torture - an active pain, of someone peeling your skin in thin strips from your body, or slicing open your fingernails, or crushing bones with a hammer, or pulling teeth from your mouth - cannot coexist with a state of inner peace. The Yogi whose brain has learned to ignore all these signals, is no longer human, and in fact, I doubt it can be done at all. If it can, I don't call that a desirable outcome. Maybe that's the point.
"In the same way, the Seer, or true you, reflects in the mind which is your mirror."
The way we view ourselves is also distorted by our biases. We align and understand ourselves by certain identifications: I am an acroyogi, a mathematician, a vegetarian, a woman, a neuroscientist, an atheist, a classical music enthusiast, a loyal friend, a rebel. "But without any identifications, who are you? Have you ever thought about it? When you really understand that, you will see we are all the same. If you detach yourself completely from all the things you have identified yourself with, you realize yourself as the pure "I." In that pure "I" there is no difference between you and me." In fact, this insight is necessary to "love our neighbors as our own Self. Otherwise, how is it possible?" As we learned in Brown v. Board, separate but equal is inherently unequal. But we are not separate. We are all the same.
The fifth sutra in this book divides thoughts into painful or painless. Satchidananda writes, "Notice that he does not divide the thoughts into painful and pleasurable. Why? Because even a so-called pleasurable thought might ultimately bring us pain. And, again, we cannot easily know in the beginning whether a particular thought will bring pain or not. Some thoughts begin with pain but end leaving us at peace. Others appear to be pleasurable but bring pain."
Perhaps this is why yogis strive to remove attachment: because they may not believe in pleasure at all. I'm not entirely convinced of this. I believe the right path, the human path, should necessarily involve both pleasure and pain. It is not bad to have pain, but it is good to have pleasure, and I would hate to remove that good from my life. Maybe, as the yogi claims the layman is avoiding his true nature, instead, the yogi is the one avoiding the true human nature. Or maybe I'm just not enlightened enough to understand this sutra. I'll revisit this idea after some months and see how I feel.
"Many of you have experienced how the very same love brought you a lot of unhappiness, pain, hatred, jealousy and so on. Why? Because that love was not just a pure love but was based on some expectation in return." True.
"We have to watch carefully the moment a thought-form arises in the mind. We become analysts. This itself is Yoga practice - watching our own thoughts and analyzing them."
I'm deeply confused by the idea of analysis as different from judgment. Is it the emotional consequences of judgment that may not be present in analysis? In that case, that's exactly what I have been advocating for years, as a rationalist/mathematician/atheist.
Sutra 7 reads: "The sources of right knowledge are direct perception, inference and scriptural testimony."
I would be very careful to specify that right knowledge can only be approached through the intersection of these three sources. Direct perception alone has been proven to be sometimes false; testimony can easily be false; inference is useless without any input from the other two sources. This description also addresses my question of why one would bother to analyze thoughts: "Of course, whether it is valid or invalid, ultimately you have to set it aside to find your peace. But before we push out all thoughts, we try to analyze them and eliminate one set after another."
Sutra 14 reads: "Practice becomes firmly grounded when well attended to for a long time, without break and in all earnestness."
"If you are patient, your mind is more settled, and what you do will be more perfect. If you are unsettled and anxious to get the result, you are already disturbed; nothing done with that disturbed mind will have quality. So, it is not only how long you practice, but with what patience, what earnestness and what quality also."
On page 22, Satchidananda writes, "Non-attachment should not be misunderstood to be indifference." I value that quote deeply, because it addresses my central question in reading the Sutras; indeed, I think I am conflating non-attachment and indifference. Yet, he doesn't explain what the difference is! How disappointing!
An idea arises here that the best use of life is serving others, and that therein the most joy will be found. But what does it mean to serve others? If indeed the spiritual path is the only way to truly be joyful, then that should influence the way in which you serve others as well? But clearly that isn't what most people want. I'm deeply confused by this.
The Vedantic scriptures say: "Even the desire for liberation is a bondage." (p.24) Well yes. And I don't have that idea. But I am bound by the desire for desires.
"We don't sell Yoga; we just teach for our joy. The people contribute as they want. There's no business here, but rather the heart is working." (p.25) That is what I want from my teaching practice.
P. 26 reads, "You do everything with the idea that you are preparing yourself to serve others. Even the practice of meditation is not done just for your own peace but is done because with a peaceful mind you can go out into the world and serve well. With that very idea you can meditate." May be useful for my meditation practice, as it intersects with many ideas I have been considering recently.
In the discussion of sutra 17, especially on pages 30-31, Satchidananda describes various types of samadhi. In particular, he uses the example of scientists studying the atom as an example of the most basic kind of samadhi. I was deeply surprised by this - because it shows a thorough understanding of the mind of a scientist. The intense focus of the mind when doing math, performing music, or studying science, provides me with a joy that I'm often unable to describe to yogis. Indeed, when I'm doing math, I'm often unaware of anything else, unperturbed by external stimuli, deeply focused and incredibly stimulated. I have before compared this experience to a spiritual one, and it is through that lens that I'm best able to understand the power of other people's spiritual experiences.
Moreover, the discussion here led me to question the "supernatural powers" discussed in book three. Is it, in fact, the case that supernatural powers arise simply as the result of scientific inquiry, and not magic? That seems a little silly, since individuals don't have to meditate or have any focus to benefit from the discoveries of others.
I am more confused by the third samadhi, wherein, "there is only joy there and no reasoning or reflection." Without reasoning or reflection, how can one serve others?
From the rest of this book, I was mostly interested in the idea of non-attachment. Importantly, I'm not convinced it is the right path for me. For example, "Who would not like serenity of mind always?" (p.51) I would not. Serenity may mean calm and peace, but it also means I miss the incredible highs I regularly experience. How could I possibly give up love, joy, excitement? For calmness? Why? in fact, it is even said later: "And nothing is exciting to a jivanmukta" (p. 71). To me, that sounds like an awful way to be. I realized that my greatest attachment, is that to the idea of maintaining attachments.
From Book Two: Portion on Practice
The broad themes in this chapter are mostly a continuation of the ideas in Book One, so most of my novel observations here, relate to smaller observations. For instance, “If the mind can be filled with sublime thoughts...the sex desire will be devitalized by the withdrawal of the mind.” (p.76). I certainly find reduced focus on sex when I am happy and fulfilled in other ways. On the same page, “Speech should bring tranquility and be truthful, pleasant and beneficial.” This is a great cue for me personally.
“You cannot exactly understand how a snake crawls unless you become a snake. We can hear things, study, form our own opinions, use our imagination, but nothing can equal experience.” (p.77) This idea has been really important in my own personal development because I have now lived experiences that I remember previously being impossible for me to experience. This observation has allowed me to empathize more deeply with those whose values do not align with my own. Because I have held diametrically opposing beliefs at different times in my life, I have realized that everyone has good intentions, they just sometimes hold different values, or are not strong enough to act in accordance with their values (myself included.)
“Every time you do something, feel, “May this be dedicated to God.” If you constantly remember to do this, the mind will be free and tranquil. Try not to possess anything for yourself. Temporarily keep things but feel you are just a trustee, not an owner.” (p.78). I’m not sure whether this is the path I choose to take, but I want to go back and think more deeply on this idea later.
Sutra Three reads, “Ignorance, egoism, attachment, hatred and clinging to bodily life are the five obstacles.” (p.80)
Sutras Seven and Eight on p.85 define attachment and aversion: “Attachment is that which follows identification with pleasurable experiences. Aversion is that which follows identification with painful experiences.”
“No one can ever give us happiness or unhappiness but can only reflect or distort our own inner happiness.” (p.86)
Sutra Fifteen reads, “To one of discrimination, everything is painful indeed, due to its consequences: the anxiety and fear over losing what is gained; the resulting impressions left in the mind to create renewed cravings; and the constant conflict among the three gunas, which control the mind.” (p.94)
“It’s all right to have a beautiful face; it’s all right to have anything, as long as you don’t let these things bring you anxiety and fear. If they come to you, let them come; enjoy their presence. But when they go, enjoy their departure too. When they come, they come alone, so allow them to go alone without losing your mind along with the external object.” (p.95)
“We speak of ourselves in two ways. One is, “look at my body. Isn’t it slim?” The other is, “Look at how slim I am.” Who is slim? Is it you or the body? This identification with other things is the cause of all our pain. Instead, if we are just ourselves always, things may change or stay as they are, but they will never cause us pain because the changes will be in the things we possess and not in us… When you mix yourself up with your possessions, pull yourself out of the mire, and your feelings will change greatly. You’ll be a different person.” (p.97)
“Nature is here to give you experience and, ultimately, to liberate you from its bondage. even if people do not want to be liberated, it educates them gradually so that one day they will come to feel, “I’m tired of the whole thing. I don’t want it anymore. I’ve had enough.” When will we feel this way? Only after we’ve gotten enough kicks and burns.” (p.98) but why? life can be so wonderful.
From Book Three: Portion on Accomplishments
The Portion on Accomplishments starts innocently enough, explaining the practice of meditation, the difference between meditation and concentration, and how meditation can lead to samadhi. Sri Swami Satchidananda explains that our entire world and our experiences are entirely a product of our interpretation of sensory inputs, and that our interpretations are malleable and subjective. This is well-established within scientific communities. However, the sutras quickly jump from this to a set of mystic fictions about an advanced yogi's supernatural abilities, such as, being able to remember past lives, becoming invisible by preventing light from reflecting off of your body (which, by the way, would cause you to appear as blackness - perhaps invisible but not visually undetectable), knowing the exact time of your death (only possible if you plan an imminent suicide, and even then not guaranteed), or gaining the physical strength and weight of an elephant without changing the physical structure of your body. These patently ridiculous claims may describe the deluded hallucinations of certain yogis who were entirely removed from their tenuous connections to the external, objective reality that I consider axiomatic. And it may indeed be possible for anyone to believe they are achieving these supernatural feats. Perhaps the whole point of yoga, is to release the idea of an external objective reality, and accept that the only reality is the one you have direct access to - that within your own mind. In that case, literally anything is possible. Maybe some day, I will see benefit in this approach; for now, I find it almost incomprehensible to release the aspiration of connection to objectivity. I am, for the first time, content to accept the frailty of my own connection, and the likely futility of my aspiration in this regard.
My favorite part of this chapter, was again in the explanation by Satchidananda, when on page 190, he writes, "What is God? Pease, contentment, egolessness." That, is a practical and worthwhile definition, particularly for me. One of my goals of teacher training, is to be able to translate spiritual ideas into a language that I can understand. This definition of God, thoroughly helps me in that journey.
From Book Four: Portion on Absoluteness
Here, I have started to question, "What is absoluteness?" and, "What is truth?" In the past, I have used these concepts to refer to my favored idea of an external objective reality, governed by logic. In my view, the best access we have to the nature of this reality stems from philosophy, and the best access to the facts of this reality stems from scientific inquiry based on empiricism. Patanjali seems particularly unconcerned with the fact-based approach, choosing to focus instead on the nature of reality and our philosophical understanding of it. Here, I sense a claim, that we can understand truth and absoluteness, not via reasoned discourse, but by internal examination, by deep meditation, by relinquishing our ego, our judgement, our logical voice. This idea is deeply unappealing to me - and as such, one that I must consider longer.
The first sutra in this book, strikes me deeply. It is translated as, "Siddhis are born of practices performed in previous births, or by herbs, mantra repetition, asceticism, or by samadhi." (p. 197). I am interpreting this as, "there are a specific set of brain states that can be activated in a variety of ways. Access to these brain states is related to yoga, or perhaps, even the goal of yoga. That is, the practice of meditation and yoga can induce brain activity similar to that of various external substances like LSD, or extreme asceticism." In this way, I am able to have a hallucinogenic experience, without actively taking any hallucinogenic drugs. My great fear in yoga and meditation, is that I might get "stuck" in such an experience if I delve too deeply, just as a drug addict can be physically and psychologically dependent on his drug. The extra danger in seeing yoga and meditation as a drug, is that it is available to me any time - in fact, that's the point - and I know already that I have the ability to be sucked into addiction and unhealthy behaviors only if they are internal rather than external. I therefore continue to exercise a great deal of caution in my current exploration of yoga.
I don't agree that the natural state of the mind is peace and tranquility. I think the great efforts required to achieve that state is strong evidence otherwise. I am also confused by sutra 7, on page 200, which proceeds, "The actions of the Yogi are neither white nor black; but the actions of others are of three kinds: good, bad, and mixed." This must be related to the definitions of "good" and "bad." If good and bad is related to the intent of the agent, and or, the agent's experience of consequence related to the action, then this makes sense. That means, "good" and "bad" must be defined internally, which is consistent with the idea of all reality as subjective and internal. Once the yogi releases judgment of all things, so too she will release judgment of her own actions, as well as intent. If I understand this correctly, it sounds much different from the way I aspire to live.
I am further confused by the idea of objective external versus subjective internal reality, by sutras 15 and 16 on page 204. Patanjali writes, "Due to differences in various minds, perception of even the same object may vary," and, "Nor does an object's existence depend upon a single mind, for if it did, what would become of that object when the mind did not perceive it?" Personally, I agree strongly with both of these ideas, but they do seem contradictory to some earlier ideas expounded in the sutras, particularly, the idea of subjective versus objective reality. If all reality is the subjective experience contained in our mind, then indeed an object not perceived does not exist until the moment it is perceived.
Satchidananda writes on page 207, "When you hurt somebody else you say, "Oh, I didn't do it; it was only my mind." When somebody else hurts you, you should feel the same way. "Well you didn't hurt me, your mind did it, so I can't be angry with you."" This is powerful, and I fundamentally agree with the idea. This is related to work I've been doing for my psychological and emotional well-being and my relations and interactions with others. Even before yoga teacher training, I started to abandon the ego for this reason - I realized that when I hurt someone else, I always had an excuse or a reason, but I always invalidated the excuses or reasons of others to do things I didn't like.
From page 213, "you have to have a good want to push away the old bad ones. When the old wants are ready to go, the good want will go also... If, instead, you are pushing an undesirable want away with another undesirable want, it may help in ridding you of the first one, but the second will remain with you." Yes.
I'm strongly opposed to the Karmic view, especially when assigning gender, caste, or discussing physical deformities. This idea is still used in India today to subjugate women and the lower castes, to ostracize those with disabilities. This isn't a necessary consequence of the idea, but the fact that it has happened so many times is deeply upsetting. Also, I find the idea itself patently ridiculous, because I don't believe in reincarnation.
THINK OF THE MIND AS ANOTHER SENSE, A TOOL.