New interpretation of Yoga Suutra

[Kengo Harimoto]

[I corrected the subject.  Stupid mistake on my part.]

> It is an ambiguity inherent to YS.

No such thing as ambiguity in 1.7 (and in some other places).

I was about to introduce the background of the number and definitions
of pramANas in Indian philosophy, but just realized that MMW says
``cf. pramANa'' under prataykSa, etc.  Did you do this?  It seems your
authority on the meaning of Sanskrit words is MMW.

It appears that you are just trying to differ to everyone else.  Other
than that, what justification is there?  You don't have a clue to the
meanings of Sanskrit words without dictionaries, as not being a native
speaker.  Still, you even try to deliberately choose most unlikely
meanings or interpretations.  It seems that your assumption is that
everyone else is wrong.  Or is it that it must be wrong because
everyone else reads that way?

OTOH, I would suggest looking at other philosophical sUtras.  You
will find ambiguity in them, too.

For one thing, SUtras are ambiguous by definition (except for
Buddhist sUtras, and maybe others?).  Try reading PANini's sUtras by
themselves.  They are usually accompanied by a BhASya.  Unless you
are being given instructions from a guru, who knows all the secrets
concentrated in the sUtras (but how can you know he is trustworthy?),
the folks like you and me, have to rely on the BhASyas to understand
them.  [Well, the MahAbhASya does not make our life much easier,
though.]

And the YS is not compiled out of blue without any connection to the
context it was in.  The discussion of pramANa was a very popular one.

It may appear all the meanings are created equal in the dictionary,
but given the context the text was in, there are meanings to choose
from.

In connection to 1.7, let me introduce YS 1.49 (CrutAnumAnaprajJAbhyAm
anyaviSayA viCeSArthatvAt), where the word anumAna appears again.
Interesting thing about this sUtra is that it refers to the definition
of anumAna and Agama given in the BhASya.  The sUtras do not give the
definition of the pramANas.  The BhASya on 1.7 says that the primary
domain of anumAna and Agama is sAmAnya while that of pratyakSa is
viCeSa.

And, when you see anya, you should expect ablative.  So, you should
first suspect that the dual of the first compound may be ablative.
You should also know that a pramANa roughly equivalent to Agama is
called Cabda or Aptavacana in other schools.  It might be called Cruti
although it could be used in the sense of pratyakSa in other contexts.
But that's what the BhASya does.

Given all these, it seems natural to understand YS 1.49 as the BhASya
says.  In turn, YS 1.7 is the list of pramANas.  The sUtra is so
simple that even without the help of the BhASya, most everyone sees it
as dvandva.  [I may actually have done it wrong in my first year of
learning Sanskrit :-(] One could get an F if [s]he translates such a
simple sUtra in the way you did.

So, one sUtra (1.49) appears to presuppose what is said in the BhASya
(1.7).  At this point, one has to question whether it is justifiable
to see the YS and the YBh as simply a text and its commentary,
composed at different times.  There is even a view that the YS was
compiled by the author of the YBh.  Although I think it is a bit of
stretch, it is likely that the PAtaJjalayogaCAstra, the combination of
the YS and the YBh evolved as a whole.

As a side issue, would you be surprised to hear that the author of a
commentary on the PAtaJjalayogaCAstra did not have the same version of
sUtras as we see today?

I do admire your ambition and am surprised that one could do that much
apparently without the help of a teacher.  But it's kind of true that
there are things that could only be learned from a teacher.  Or, one
needs a guidance to know which direction [s]he should go.

--
kengo