Verse 6.72

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

प्राणायामैर्दहेद् दोषान् धारणाभिश्च किल्बिषम् ।
प्रत्याहारेण संसर्गान् ध्यानेनानीश्वरान् गुणान् ॥ ७२ ॥

prāṇāyāmairdahed doṣān dhāraṇābhiśca kilbiṣam |
pratyāhāreṇa saṃsargān dhyānenānīśvarān guṇān || 72 ||

By means of ‘Breath-suspension’ he shall destroy the taints; and by means of ‘Concentration,’ all sin; all attachments by means of ‘Abstraction,’ and by means of ‘Contemplation,’ those attributes that are not independent.—(72)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

What is said here regarding Breath-suspension has already been indicated in the preceding verse.

But some people explain this verse to mean that ‘one shall destroy the taints’—i.e., love, hatred &c.

But how can these latter be destroyed by means of Breath-suspension? What can be destroyed by it is sin (not love &c.), specially as it is sin only which has its origin as well as destruction both indicated in the scriptures, and hence imperceptible; while Love or Hatred and the rest are all directly perceptible; so that what destroys these, and what is destroyed by them, can also be learnt by perception, and not through the scriptures. If the scripture were to speak of the destroying of these, its meaning would be that ‘one should destroy these things, which are by their very nature, destructible’;—and what would be the authority attached to such a declaration? From all this it is clear that what is meant by the term ‘taint’ is the evil deed that proceeds from Love and the rest. And this is ‘destroyed’ by the destruction of its effects; because as for the act itself, it perishes by reason of its evanescent character. This is what is meant by ‘dāha’, ‘being consumed’, and not being actually burnt to ashes.

Thus the present verse is only a reiteration of what has gone before in the preceding verse.

‘By means of Concentration’—

Objection—“‘Kilviṣa (Kilbiṣa)’ is sin, so is ‘doṣa’ also. Hence the words of the text should have been ‘by means of Breath-Suspension and Concentration he shall destroy all taints, doṣas’; and there would be no need of mentioning kilviṣa, sin, separately. Or, only ‘kilviṣa’, sin,’ need have been mentioned, and where was the need for mentioning ‘doṣa,’ ‘taint’, also?”

The explanation is as follows:—It is absolutely necessary to mention the ‘taint’, in order to show that what are destroyed by means of Breath-suspension are only particular kinds of sin, not all. The term ‘taint’ stands for Love and other like things; and hence the word can be rightly taken as figuratively indicating such sinful acts as are prompted by Love, Hatred &c., as has been already pointed out.

“If so, then, let the taint be mentioned, what is the use of mentioning the ‘kilviṣa,’ sin?”

No objection can be taken to it, as it is mentioned only for the purpose of filling up the metre. Further (the use of the second term gives the further meaning that) Breath-suspension is destructive of the sin accruing from the taints of Love &c., while Concentration stops the sin from arising at all.

“What is ‘Concentration’?”

By a longing for sensual objects and their enjoyment the mind is sometimes drawn away from the point where it may have been resting during the periods of quiescence, self-control and the like; and it is by means of ‘Concentration’ that it is concentrated, kept fixed on that same point. As a matter of fact, when one perceives brightness, charm, youth, shapeliness of the body and so forth in a woman, they give rise to his longing for her; all these details are apprehended by concrete perception; and all such perceptions are so many thoughts. Hence they can be counter-acted by counter-thoughts pertaining to the defects in the object perceived,—such as ‘her body is filled with urine and ordure,’ ‘the very object Woman consists of skin and bones;—fie upon the men that long for such a despicable object;—even the slight pleasure that she affords is momentary, and ultimately leads to terrible sufferings at the hands of the Death-god’. This is what is called ‘reflecting over’ the object. This reflection of the defects is what is spoken of below under verse 76.

The same method of reflection is to be employed regarding food and other objects of enjoyment. For instance—‘all this—sugar, cakes, fresh butter, milk-rice and so forth—stands on the same footing as coarse food obtained in alms; there being no difference in their nutritive power; the slight difference in their taste that may be felt on the tip of the tongue, is felt for the infinitesimal part of a second, so that even this momentary taste is like the imaginary city. Similarly one may reflect upon the defects in the objects of touch; and so forth. This is what is taught io the present text (by the term ‘Concentration’).

Others offer the following explanation of the term ‘dhāraṇā’ of the text:—When a man by constant practice succeeds in concentrating his breath, moving along his mouth and nose, in the cavity of his heart,—this is what constitutes ‘Concentration’.

“In what way would this differ from Breath-suspension?”

The difference is that we have ‘concentration’ also when the breath is held up in such places as the arms, the forehead and the like; whereas in Breath-suspension there is always exhalation at the end.

Others again hold ‘Dhāraṇā’ Concentration to consist in the qualities of ‘Friendliness, Joyfulness, Pathos and Indifference.’ ‘Friendliness, Kindness, Joyousness and Indifference, towards all living beings, carry the contemplation to the regions of Brahman; and these constitute Dhāraṇā’. (says an old text.)—Here ‘friendliness’ stands for absence of hatred, and not friendly affection; as this latter would be of the nature of a hindrance;—‘kindness’ is pity, a disposition of the mind; it consists in the longing to rescue a suffering person from suffering, and not the actual desisting from injuring, or conferring a benefit upon, others; it is in view of this that it has been described as a disposition of the mind, which should be practised—‘joyousness’ also stands for absence of grief at suffering caused by disease, or at the fear of the sufferings of hell, and not for actual pleasure, as this would be conducive to attachment;—‘indifference’ towards objects, favourable as well as unfavourable, is well known.

Or again, ‘concentration’ may be explained as consisting in fixing the mind on the inner cavity of the heart, in the process of meditating upon Brahman.

‘By Abstraction, all attachment:—‘attachment’ here stands (or the connection of the senses with their objects and their being drawn towards them. This is destroyed by Abstraction; whereupon the senses become drawn off from the objects, or their attraction is obstructed. For instance, when one happens to see a bracelet or some such ornament, or a handsome woman, he shall not fix his eyes upon them, he shall move his eyes to something else; similarly with all the senses. In this manner the composure of the Yogin becomes unperturbed.

‘By means of Contemplation, those attributes that are not independent.’ The ‘attributes’ meant here are those of Harmony, Energy and Inertia; and these are ‘not independent,’ being subservient to something else, in the shape of Consciousness. Though the soul or person is free from pleasure &c., yet there appears in him the false notion ‘I am happy—I am unhappy’; though he is free from attributes, he identifies himself with them;—all this has got to be destroyed by contemplating upon the distinction between the Soul and the Attributes; that the distinction between the two has to be drawn in some such form as—‘the Person, being of the nature of Consciousness is beyond Attributes, and it is Primordial matter that consists of the Attributes.’—(72)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Anīśvarān guṇān’—‘The three attributes of the Root Evolvent i.e., Sattva, Rajas and Tamas; these are anīśvara, i.e., dependent (upon the Conscious Being) (Medhātithi);—‘qualities of anger, greed etc., which are anīśvara, i.e., do not reside in God’ (Kullūka and Rāghavānanda) qualities opposed to virtue, knowledge, dispassion and power’ (Govindarāja).

This verse is quoted in Yatidharmasaṅgraha (p. 41), which says that what this verse mentions are ‘Yama—niyama—āsana—prāṇāyāma—pratyāhāra—dhāraṇā and dhyāna’, all the accessories of Yoga except ‘Samādhi,’ which have been described in the ordinances as the means of acquiring Right Knowledge.

 

Comparative notes by various authors

Viṣṇu (96.24).—‘He must constantly be intent upon suppressing his breath, upon retention of the image formed in his mind and upon meditation.’