Sūtra 1.41

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.41:

क्षीणवृत्तेरभिजातस्येव मणेर्ग्रहीतृग्रहणग्राह्येषु तत्स्थतदञ्जनता समापत्तिः ॥ १.४१ ॥

kṣīṇavṛtterabhijātasyeva maṇergrahītṛgrahaṇagrāhyeṣu tatsthatadañjanatā samāpattiḥ || 1.41 ||

41. To him of overpowered faculties, there are a concentration and a consubstantiation in (matters relating to) the perceiver, the means of perception, and the perceivable, as in a transparent gem.

The Rajamartanda commentary by King Bhoja:

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

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

What becomes of the condition of the thinking principle purified by these methods, he now proceeds to describe.

[Read Sūtra 1.41]

He, whose faculties have been overpowered, is “of overpowered faculties” (kṣīṇavṛtti). With reference to him there is, in regard to the objects of his faculties, no distinction about the perceiver, the means of perception, and the perceivable, and there result a “concentration” and a “consubstantion.” Tatsthatva is concentration in it, (ekāgratā). “Consubstantiation” (tadañjanatva) is becoming of it, for when the thinking principle is lowered, (or reduced in its carnal functions in the way described,) the object of meditation attains superiority. The meaning is, that such a condition (samāpatti), or modification to that form, results.

Of this an example is given. In the case of “a transparent gem” or clear rock-crystal jewel, whatever colour it dwells upon, the same it obtains. In the same way in the transparent, clear thinking principle the form of the object thought of is imposed.

Although the text gives the perceiver, the means of perception, and the perceptible, but, according to the order of precedence, the terms should be understood to stand as if written “perceptible, means of perception, and perceiver,” for first the meditation is directed to the perceivable; then it is devoted to the perception; and then it is confined to the perceiver, which is mere egoism; for in the case of the soul alone there can be no thinking. Even so, the thinking principle tinged by a substantial or a subtile object of perception assumes its character. In this sense the condition is implied also to the perceived.

Notes and Extracts

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

[The word kṣīṇa in the text means weakened, but this weakness is not general; according to the P. Rahasya it is confined to those subjects which are not thought of, the power remaining in full force in connexion with the special object of thought:—

kṣīṇa-vṛtteḥ ālambanaviṣayātirikta-viṣayanirūpita-vṛtti-śūnyasya.

Tatsthatva is literally being in a thing, tat ‘there,’ and sthā “to be reposited;” but the commentator gives the equivalent concentration, ekāgratā. Tadañjanatva is literally being tinged thereby, and the stock illustration of the crystal being coloured red by the shoe-flower placed in it is adduced; but the commentator prefers the equivalent tanmayatva “being of that substance.” He is, however, not singular in these interpretations. The Pātañjala Bhāṣya amplifies the explanation by adding that when the soul, as agent or perceiver, is made the object of thought, the thinking principle becomes manifest in the special form of that soul, and when the emancipated soul is thought upon the thinking principle becomes of its special form.—

gṛhitṛpuruṣālambanoparaktam gṛhitṛpuruṣasamāpannam gṛhitṛpuruṣa-svarūpākāreṇa nīrbhāsate. Tathā muktapuruṣālambanoparaktam muktapuruṣasamāpannam muktapuruṣasvarūpākāreṇa nirbhāsate.]

Having explained the conditions, he now points out its fourfold differences (in three aphorisms.)