INDOLOGY Digest - 7 Feb 2001 to 8 Feb 2001 (#2001-40)

[Dmitri]

Dear Vidyasankar,
Here are some answers to your questions.

>1. v.rttis = transformations, but of what? v.rttis beginning with
>   citta implies that citta is itself the first transformation.
>   Again, of what? Is there some preexisting thing that transforms
>   into the citta etc., or does the citta come into being anew?
>
>2. Does not your phrase "distortion of sensation" imply "cittasya
>   v.rtti", thereby  thereby citta(gen)-v.rtti? Similary in your usage of
>   the phrase "cittav.rtti called sm.rti" ...

One answer to both questions.
Citta come into being anew each time.
Now, what v.rttis are transformation of?

The general picture here is this:
There are several entities here.
First is a sensation, or, more precisely, the stimulation of sense organs
which is attended to.
Last entity is a percept, or gestalt -- term is different in different
traditions of research of perception.
There might be several entities in-between them.
There are two classes of transformations. First, is a change of an entity
itself, second is a change of entity into another entity.
Examples: change of sensation that does not produce another entity is
an integration of stimulus with time. This integration is present when
you look at a movie. Say, you look at a movie of falling ball. Actually
there are 30 static pictures in a second, but
the stimuli are integrated into one stimulus -- that of a falling ball.
Other change of an entity without producing another entity might be
demostrated by dependence of optical illusions from time.

Now, why it is assumed that there are several entities and not a single one
that changes as the process of perception proceeds?

Because, sometimes it is possible to recollect both original sensation and
the percept it produced.  The recollected sensation might produce a new
percept different from the first one. This is an experimental fact.

The transformation of entity in itself would be expressed with
citta(gen.)-v.rtti
Transformation from sensation to the next entity would be expressed with
citta(abl.)-v.rtti

Since there are actually two classes of transformations involved
why did I choose  citta(abl.)-v.rtti in I.2?
Because this choice leaves room for the transformations of citta(gen.) class
while the other choice would be more restrictive by excluding inter-entity
changes.
In cases like this I presumed that Patanjali's choice was the most accurate
and exact of all available alternatives.

Sometimes I refer to one type of transformation, sometimes to the other one.
That is the source of confusion.

>3. Agama - like it or not, south of the Himalayas, "valid testimony"
>   is an important pramA.na. I think if you look a little west, you
>   will again find importance being given to it, in a different way
>   perhaps. Given that the yogasUtra was born in and was transmitted
>   in the country south of the Himalayas, why downgrade Agama, going
>   by Pyrrho, if not Descartes?
It is not a downgrade but the other way around -- upgrade.
My opinion is that the original meaning of YS (part of Agama too!) is
more sophisticated and accurate than the commentaries to it composed later.

>Your reinterpretation may well end
>up in the camps of Pyrrhus of Epirus, rather than Pyrrho of Elis.
No danger of that.  The techniques described are useful, I'd say, very
useful, so in the worst case, there are these techniques.

>Objections raised by those who know something about the
>history of the school and its mss. should be taken seriously.
>I think Kengo is one, as he has worked on a critical edition of
>one of the commentaries. He mentioned this earlier on this list.

To get serious objections is the goal of my posting on the Indology.
So far, Mr. Harimoto keeps saying that I am illiterate and criticise
my rendering without reading it - the remark on ablative required by
anya shows it, since I use meaning of anya that is not "different".

I do hope for criticism like "here and there is research that indicates you
are wrong", or "there is contradicition here and there"
and not attacks ad hominem.

>Can you show that this explanation, using concepts from within YS itself,is
>unsound?
That is an interesting question. I do have several objections against
VyAsa point of view.  On many occasions, it is counter-factual, on others it
is plain vague, and on others it is self-contradicting.
But there are two disctinct topics: subject of "cittav.tti nirodha" and
history of YS interpretations - what this or that commentator thought about
it. I am mostly interested in in subject matter, not in the history.
So, excuse me, if I'll concentrate on YS itself, not on the history of
commentaries to it.


Best regards,
             Dmitri.