Sūtra 3.17

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 3.17:

शब्दार्थप्रत्ययानामितरेतराध्यासात्सङ्करस्तत्प्रविभागसंयमात्सर्वभ् ऊतरुतज्ञानम् ॥ ३.१७ ॥

śabdārthapratyayānāmitaretarādhyāsātsaṅkarastatpravibhāgasaṃyamātsarvabh ūtarutajñānam || 3.17 ||

17. A confused comprehension of word, meaning, and knowledge (arises) from indiscriminate understanding. By Saṃyama with due discrimination, (is acquired an understanding) of the cry of all creatures.

The Rajamartanda commentary by King Bhoja:

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

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

He describes another kind of perfection.

[Read Sūtra 3.17]

A “word” (śabda) is a sound formed of letters joined in a fixed order, pereeptible by the organ of hearing, and always conveying the same, single, distinct meaning; or it is a mere explosive sound having in it no fixed order, but still intelligible to cultivated understanding. In either case it forms words and sentences, for both are adapted to convey a fixed meaning. “Meaning” (artha) implies kind, quality, action, &c. “Understanding” (pratyaya) is knowledge, or the function of the intellect in which it assumes the form of the object (implied). By accepting in our intellect these naturally distinct word, meaning and understanding as one, there is confusion. Thus, in saying “bring a cow,” the meaning is a cow (go), belonging specifically to the species cow, and having dewlap, &c.; the word is the indicator; and the understanding is the appreciation of it; and all these are grasped without any distinction. It is not used with a clear perception of the word cow being the indicator, the meaning being what is indicated by the word, and the understanding that which accepts the two; and if one is asked what is the meaning? what is the word? what is the understanding produced by it? he gives, only one answer to all the questions by saying ‘a cow.’ Were he not to conceive all these to be identical, how could he give the same answer to all the questions? In this state he who makes the “distinction,” (pravibhāga) that the essential nature of a word is that it is the indicator (vācaka), that of its meaning is the indicated, and that of the understanding is making it manifest, and, making this distinction, places himself in Saṃyama about it, acquires the knowledge of the cry (ruta) or word of all creatures, including feral and domestic quadrupeds, birds, reptiles, &c., i.e., he knows with what particular motive a specific sound has been made by a particular animal.

Notes and Extracts

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

[Words are correlated with meanings, and meanings with ideas. When sounds are reduced to speech there is a fixed relation between their constituents, and this relation is fixed by orthography and syntax; but when, in the cry of an animal for instance, this relation of sounds does not appear to be so fixed, it is not to be understood that there is no such relation, for without it the sounds could not convey meaning and idea. And the relation being admitted, it must follow that the cry of animals, which are intended to convey ideas, must have some such relation, and this relation can be learnt by directing the Saṃyama to it. Ergo when the Saṃyama is accomplished, the Yogi who performs it is able to understand the meaning of the cries of animals.]

He describes another form of perfection.