Sūtra 1.45

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.45:

सूक्ष्मविषयत्वं चालिङ्गपर्यवसानम् ॥ १.४५ ॥

sūkṣmaviṣayatvaṃ cāliṅgaparyavasānam || 1.45 ||

45. This subtile objectivity terminates in the indissoluble.

The Rajamartanda commentary by King Bhoja:

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

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

What has been described about the object of the deliberative and the non-deliberative conditions being subtile objectivity extends to the indissoluble. That which does not merge into anything, nor indicates or implies anything is the “Indissoluble” (aliṅga) or First Principle (nature, Prakṛti), and subtile objectivity extends to that limit. Now in the resolution of qualities, there are four stages, viz., 1, defined character, (viśiṣṭa-liṅga); 2, undefined character (aviśiṣṭa-liṅga); 3, mere character (liṅgamātra); 4, devoid of character, or indissoluble, (aliṅga). The objects of defined character are the (gross) elements. Those of undefined character are the subtile elements and the organs. Mere character is indicative of the Intellect; and devoid of character, the First Principle. Hereby it is said that there is nothing more subtile than the First Principle.

Notes and Extracts

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

[The word liṅga has been defined to be that which indicates or characterises, a mark or sign which is inseperable from it, and, I believe, the word character is its nearest equivalent. The First Principle or Prakṛti is called aliṅga or that which is without anindicator, because by itself it does not specifically indicate anything, and is the subtlest of the categories, and there is nothing more subtile.

“It may be urged,” argues the Pātañjala Bhāṣya,

nanvasti puruṣaḥ sūkṣma iti. Satyam yathā liṅgāt param aliṅgasya saukṣmyam, nacaivam-puruṣasya, kintu liṅgasya anvayī-kāraṇam puruṣo na bhavati hetustu bhavatīti, ataḥ pradhāne saukṣmyam niratisayam vyākhyātam.

“It may be urged that the soul is more subtile than the first principle, but, though it is true that the characterless (aliṅga or Prakṛti) is more subtile than the characterised, still the same cannot be the case with the soul, since the soul is not the material but the instrumental cause of character, and therefore the utmost limit of subtility must rest with the First Principle.”]

He now points out the necessity for these mental conditions.