New interpretation of Yoga Suutra

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

>I agree that external objects may be referred, but these are usually
>internalized as names, name being the closest mental faculty that
>represents external object. Even tatvamasi contains 'tat'. I agree

Hai Ram, it is impossible to discuss anything, if the context
is not given due importance! There is no point in getting into
a field like Yoga or Vedanta, without cultivating the mental
discipline necessary for it. At the very least, there should
be a little knowledge of the primary texts. Please don't take
this badly; I wish you well.

The "tat" in YS 2.21 refers to the d.rzya mentioned in YS 2.20.

The "tat" in tattvamasi refers to "sad ekam eva advitIyam",
as described in the beginning of that particular chapter in
chAndogya. If you want to relate this to Yoga, this "tat"
would correspond to the innermost dra.s.taa.

This "tat" and that "tat" are not the same. The word "tat"
in Sanskrit is just like the word "that" in English. It
indicates something already described in the immediate
context. If you mix up two different texts with their two
different contexts wilfully, you end up with unnecessary
confusion. I'm sure you have heard of GIGO.

>that internal objects can be 'seen', so the word dRzya may be
>justified.

Who is justifying what, and to whom, here? Do you mean to
say that someone should justify Patanjali's usage of d.rzya?

>cittav.rttinirodha can not be neutralizing the stimuli within one's own
>cognitive apparatus. cit being one of the trio 'sat, cit and Anandam',

Check the dictionaries for how cit and citta can be different
things, philosophically. And check the meaning of nirodha
also (rudhir aavara.ne).

You may want to read the yogasUtras for your purposes, but
you seem to want to fit everything in this universe into
a preconceived model of indrA, agnI, yajnA and jAtavedas
(I use your transliterations here). If so, I am sorry -
there can be no reasonable discussion any more. I'm unable
to find indrA and bRhaspatI where you find them.

>playing with cit must be a lot more intelligent than usually portrayed.

I won't even begin to comment about this.

Best wishes,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.