Sūtra 1.35

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.35:

विषयवती वा प्रवृतिरुत्पन्ना स्थितिनिबन्धिनी ॥ १.३५ ॥

viṣayavatī vā pravṛtirutpannā sthitinibandhinī || 1.35 ||

35. Or cognition resulting from sensuous objects may be the cause of steadiness.

The Rajamartanda commentary by King Bhoja:

[English translation of the 11th century commentary by Bhoja called the Rājamārtaṇḍa]

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

In pointing out another expedient, he foreshadows the conscious form of meditation.

[Read Sūtra 1.35]

“Of the mind” (manasaḥ is understood to) complete the sentence. “Sensuous objects” (viṣaya) are odour, taste, colour, touch and sound, and that in which these reside as objects is viṣayavatī, the cognition whereof causes the steadiness of the mind. Thus, by directing the thinking principle to the tip of the nose, the cognition of spiritual odour is effected. In the same way the cognition of taste may be effected at the tip of the tongue, the cognition of colour at the forepart of the palate, the cognition of touch at the middle of the tongue, and the cognition of sound at the root of the tongue. Thus the cognition of spiritual sense-objects resulting through one or other of those organs becomes the cause of the concentration of the mind. This is to encourage Yogīs in the belief that the Yoga has a fruit.

Notes and Extracts

[Notes and comparative extracts from other commentaries on the Yogasūtra]

[By this commentary the meaning of the text remains perfectly unintellegible to the uninitiated. The reason is, the commentator takes for granted that the rudimentary principles of Yoga are known to his readers. The purport is that in the act of Prāṇāyāma (as explained in A. XXXIV) when the Yogī directs his mind to the tip of his nose&c., he derives in the places mentioned a sense of those objects which is ordinarily acquired by their natural organs, and having done so, he feels no inclination to exercise those natural organs, and his mind settles down into undisturbed contemplation of the object to which he directs his mind. The commentator uses the word divya for which I use “spiritual” as the equivalent. The P. Rahasga uses alaukika or “supernatural” as the equivalent. The word pravṛtti in the text has been taken by the Pātañjala Bhāṣya to be equal to sañvit or cognition. In the commentary above and elsewhere the word manas mind has been sometimes used for citta, thinking principle].