New interpretation of Yoga Suutra

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

Thanks for the kind comments. I do not have definitive answers, but I can
offer some discussion.

The construction "tadA draSTuHsvarUpe" is a nightmare from a poet's point of
view. Some times my father struggles for days for right words in cases like
these. He writes Telugu poetry, and occasionally Sanskrit. Poetry in Telugu
and to some extent classical Sanskrit is somewhat easy because they have
strict rules about guru and laghu due to limited chandas. sUtrAs and vedic
metres may not have rigid rules, but this is only a temporary relief. There
are more complex and subtle rules like balam and sAma which dictate the
outcome. I am only writing from my own experience and what I heard when my
father was working with his poetry.

I faintly remember there is some restriction on savarNa dIrgha sandhi whose
first part has a light dIrghA ending and second part starting with a hrasva
compound (like 'dr') having 'r'. I may be wrong.

Just to play with meaningless words, 'tadhA draSTu' or 'tadAdrAStu' may
provide some balam without any meaning or context or metre.

The root cause why oral tradition is preferred to written tradition is
because what is written can go wrong. I am curious what the oral tradition
says about this sUtra.

While chanting, "tadA" leaves at a different place and "draSTu" picks up
somewhere else. If I teach some one "tadA draSTuHsvarUpe" I have to provide
extra initiative for draSTu by taking a gasp in between, which gives me a
feeling I am telling a lie or hiding some facts. My teaching is just coming
from my lips, not from my heart. I think this is what they call as sAma.
Every part of the body and mind has to contribute to the verse "at
appropriate time", not just the lips. The gap indicates some missing
literature. The rules for the "appropriate time" depend on the yajna and
that is a different story.

Now considering the relation to earlier sUtra, first we do chitta vRtti
nirodhaM. chitta vRtti is a process of deduction based on perceived cause
effect relationships between various objects found. nirodham demands that
that such activity must stop. When does it stop? Only when we realize that
all these chains are transformations (gold to a gold-chain). What are
transformations? It is change of viewer ship from one viewer to another
(gold-viewer to gold-chain-viewer). Why do people change viewer ship from
one to another? Why not use empathy and see things from our own as well as
from all other's point of view? Once this is done, there will be no more
chitta vRtti. So the first sUtra tells us to see from the point of "every"
viewer in the universe.

When you see from every viewer's point of view, there is no more "draSTu".
Or alternatively there are infinite number of viewers and infinite number of
views. We are back to Prof Ian Goddard's all or nothing argument.

Now if there is one object(iti), I can refute it saying 'neti'. If there are
infinite objects how to refute all of them? It is by using the letter 'a'
which is the ultimate instrument of negation. So we have adraSTu. Please
also note that mANDUkya says 'a' represents vizva which is the entire
manifested universe (all). So in addition to the regular
unseen/non-perceivable, adraSTu also means all-seeing (a-draSTu). Therefore
insertion of 'a' has a double philosophical advantage. Also the letter 'a'
comes from the stomach and fills all gaps in pronunciation.

I need to study naasato vidyate bhaavo naabhaavo vidyate sata.h.

Best regards
Bhadraiah


http://homes.acmecity.com/friends/harmonica/301
http://www.egroups.com/group/VedicRitual


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com