Sūtra 1.18

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.18:

विरामप्रत्ययाभ्यासपूर्वः संस्कारशेषोऽन्यः ॥ १.१८ ॥

virāmapratyayābhyāsapūrvaḥ saṃskāraśeṣo'nyaḥ || 1.18 ||

18. The other is that in which the residua are ended, preceded by the exercise of thought as regards the cause of rejection.

The Rajamartanda commentary by King Bhoja:

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

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

The author now describes that form of meditation in which consciousness is lost, asaṃprajñāta.

[Read Sūtra 1.18]

By virāma is meant that whereby rejection takes place, i.e., the abandonment of all anxiety about argumentation &c., (A. XVII). Pratyaya, “thought,” added to virāma, “cause of rejection,” produces the compound expression virāma-pratyaya. Exercise (abhyāsa) is reiteration of the idea in the thinking principle. In this condition of exercise, constantly rejecting with a negative, “not this, not this,” whatever ideas spring up, the result is the other or Unconscious meditation, or that in which there is no distinct consciousness, which has nothing left, and in which the residua are ended. It is the opposite of the former kind, and it is asaṃprajñāta-samādhi. In this condition there is nothing to be known, and therefore it is called Unconscious, undiscriminative, or seedless meditation (nirvīja).

Now, there are four modifications of the thinking principle, waking, commencing meditation, concentration, and suppression of. thought. Thereof (A. II) the waking state belongs to the two conditions of the thinking principle described as restlessness and mischievous ignorance. The quality of goodness being on the ascendant in the condition described as voluptuousness, it is that of commencing meditation. Concentration and absolute suppression are the final conditions. Each condition has its residua. Thereof, those residua which are present in the waking state are destroyed by those that are produced by the condition of commencing meditation, and those that are brought forth by the condition of commencing meditation, are destroyed by those due to the condition of concentration. The residua of the condition of concentration are destroyed by those of suppression. Even as lead melted with gold destroys the dross of gold as well as itself, so do the residua of the condition of suppression consume both themselves as well as the residua of the condition of concentration.

Notes and Extracts

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

[The most important word in the aphorism is Saṃskāra, and it is just the one which has unfortunately not been explained either in the commentary of Bhoja, or in the Pātañjala Bhāṣya. In ordinary Sanskrit it has many meanings. In the Nyāya it occurs frequently in three different senses, velocity (vega), thinking (bhāvanā), and elasticity (sthitisthāpaka). (Tarka-saṅgraha).

Adverting to the second meaning the Bhāṣā-pariccheda, says:

(bhāvanākhyāstu saṃskāro jīvavrittiratīndryaḥ
upekṣānātmakastasya niścayaḥ kāraṇam bhavet
smaraṇe pratyabhijñāyāmapyasau heturucyate)

“Saṃskāra, called thinking, (bhāvanā) resides in sentient beings; and is imperceptible to the senses. Certainty which has no inattention in its constituent, is its cause. It is also described to be the cause of memory and recognition.”

Thus it is not memory as rendered by Dr. Roer in his translation of the Bhāṣāpariccheda, for there it is described to be the cause of memory, and not memory itself. It is not sensation, nor impression, for it is not transient, but lasting. It is not perception, because that applies to the acceptance by the sensorium of something existing without, and does not serve as the cause of memory. It is not idea, for it is the result of former experience, and not spontaneous as an idea may be, nor eternal as the ancient Greek philosophers supposed ideas to be. Dr. Ballantyne renders it into “self-reproduction of thought;” but there is nothing like “self-reproduction” in it; for it is said to be revived by external stimuli, and not by its own effort. It is something then—a trace, a mark, a celule, a psychograph—which perception, whether conscious or unconscious, leaves behind in the intellect, to be revived afterwards under particular circumstances, and it is more or less connected with all intellectual acts as cause or effect. In the language of Dr. Morell (‘Mental Philosophy,’ p. 95) “When a given mental impression is produced upon us, it remains for a time before the consciousness, and then gives way to others. We know, however, that it is not absolutely lost; for, if proper conditions occur, the impression is renewed. The conclusion is, that there must be something deposited within us which subsists permanently, and which is equally there, whether it be at any moment the immediate object of our consciousness or not. This something, then, we term a residuum, using the expression, it will be observed, without implying any theory on the subject whatever.” The Sanskrit counterpart of this residuum is Saṃskāra. Every sensation, every impression, every perception, every idea, nay, every dream, leaves its trace behind, and the traces or residua so obtained constitute the sum total of our experience, and these are Saṃskāras. According to Indian philosophers these remain not only all life through, but even in subsequent states of existence, and they are, therefore, believed to be the cause of our instincts. The new-born infant takes to its mother’s breast from the saṃskāra it has in its mind from its experience in a former existence.

The next word is śeṣa, and it, too, has not been fully defined by the commentators. It means ‘remainder’ ‘balance,’ or ‘end.’ Compounded with saṃskāra the meaning is that in which the remainders are the saṃskāras, or that in which the saṃskāras are ended, or brought to a close. Bhoja accepts the second meaning, and he illustrates it by saying that in the state of Unconscious meditation in its perfection all previous saṃskāras or residua of former conditions, as well as those of the perfect state, are destroyed, even as in the process of cupellation, lead melted with gold not only destroys the dross existing in impure gold, but also itself, leaving nothing behind. Thus the Unconscious meditation is seedless or has no object whatever for contemplation. The Pātañjala Bhāṣya takes a different view. According to it, in the Unconscious stage all functions are set at rest and the residua alone remain behind. (sarva-vṛttipratyastamaya-saṃskāra-śeṣaḥ nirodhaḥ.) And Vācaspati Misra emphasizes this by adding the word “alone”—saṃskāras alone remain—(saṃskāra-mātra śeṣaḥ.) This contradiction may be explained by supposing that the Pātañjala-bhāṣya has in view a meditation from which there is awaking, while Bhoja describes the final meditation from which there is no further waking; for he admits that in the earlier stages of the Unconscious meditation there are residua peculiar to it. Yogis admit that people do wake from the Unconscious meditation, and that that meditation is often practiced, and in such cases the saṃskāras must remain in a latent state to be revived by proper stimuli on waking. It is difficult satisfactorily to decide to what condition Patañjali himself referred to. The way in which he has used the word śeṣa would suggest the idea that he has been correctly interpreted in the Pātañjala Bhāṣya. See A. L. at the end of the chapter.

The state of Unconscious meditation above described is subject to the condition precedent, that there should be repeated acts of contemplation or exercise of thought amounting to a habit, as regards the necessity of rejecting all causes of disturbance. Without it the final stage cannot he acquired. This exercise of thought, however, forms a part of the Unconscious stage, and is totally unconnected with the Conscious form. Vācaspati Miśra says—“the first word in the aphorism (which I have rendered into ‘preceded by the exercise of thought regarding the cause of rejection,’ and for the sake of idiom put at the end of the sentence) describes the means, and the other two define the nature of the meditation in question” (pūrvapaderupāyakathanamuttarābhyam ca svarūpa-kathanam). Dr. Ballantyne has mistaken the purport of the word, and made it the conditio precedent. His version is “The one [kind of meditation just described] is preceded by the exercise of thought in the shape of repose;—the other [—independent of any fresh antedecent—] is in the shape of the selfreproduction [of thought, after the departure of all objects.]” After what has been stated above, it is obvious that this version is not tenable. It may be added that it is not at all usual with authors of Sūtras to repeat in a subsequent sūtra what has been already explained in a previous one.]

Having thus stated the distinctions and the nature of Yoga, and having briefly mentioned the method of performing it, the author proceeds to speak of those methods more fully.