Sūtra 4.2

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 4.2:

जात्यन्तरपरिणामः प्रकृत्यापूरात् ॥ ४.२ ॥

jātyantarapariṇāmaḥ prakṛtyāpūrāt || 4.2 ||

2. Change of kind (results) from transmutation of the material cause.

The Rajamartanda commentary by King Bhoja:

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

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

It might be contended that since in Nandīśvara and others the change of kind, &c., were effected in this life, how can you then establish the causality of the practice of Samādhi in previous lives? In reply to this, he says:

[Read Sūtra 4.2]

The “change of kind,” &c., in Nandīśvara and others in this life (were produced) by “the transmutation of material causes” (prakṛtyāpūrāt). Future materials (or materials which are ordinarily produced in a subsequent life, come up and), produce in this life the transmutations, i.e., they change themselves into other kinds.

Notes and Extracts

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

[The general principle having been laid down in the first aphorism that special faculties are produced by five causes, the question arises, how does the body, which is produced by birth, change even in this life, the material cause remaining unaltered, and the Samādhi performed in a previous life not having effected any change at birth? The reply is that Samādhi is not the material but an instrumental cause, and it prepares the way for he selfmutation of the material cause.

Prakṛti is here used in the sense of material cause, or the materials of which the body is made up. Āpūraṇa is to fill up. The two words together mean “the materials fill up,” i.e., they undergo the necessary transmutations to change one kind into another. The purport is that even in this life the materials of the body may so change as to convert a Brāhmaṇa’s body into a divine one, as in the case of Nandīśvara, or a Kṣatriya body into a Brāhmaṇa one, as in the case of Viśvāmitra, and consequently the exception taken to the argument put forth in the first aphorism to the effect that “birth, &c. are causes of perfection” is not tenable. By the use of the word pāścātya, ‘future’, the commentator means that the changes which in ordinary course would take place in a future life, take place in exceptional cases in this life.]

It may be argued that merits, demerits, &c., are in such cases seen to be resulting (in this life when their fruits would not under the theory be liable to manifestation), how can we then attribute to them causality in the transmutation of the material cause in this life? To this the author says: