हेतुफलाश्रयालम्बनै: संगृहीतत्वाद् एषाम् अभावे तदभाव: ।।११।।

हेतु – cause, फल – fruit, effect, motive, आश्रय – substratum, आलम्बनै: – support, संगृहीतत्वाद् – because of being held together, एषाम् – of them, अभावे -in the absence, तद् – those (the संस्कार) , अभाव – there is absence of

Since (संस्कार) are held together by immediate cause, motive, mind, and the object of awareness, the संस्कार cease when the latter cease

Why do संस्कार exist and how do they perpetuate? There are four ingredients that underpin and sustain संस्कार. First is the हेतु or immediate cause which is कर्म and more specifically पापकर्म or पुण्यकर्म कर्म. From पुण्यकर्म comes pleasure and from पापकर्म comes suffering. And then one wants to repeat pleasure and avoid suffering and we undertake multiple sets of कर्म to perpetuate पाप and पुण्य. फल or motive is that which underpins production of पाप and पुण्य. One’s motives prompt action and these produce संस्कार that perpetuate the cycle. Trigger for any action is always the fruit or desire for an outcome. Additionally, one’s motives are the result of past experiences and thus are the fruits of past संस्कार – so it is easy to get caught in patterns of behaviour.

The आश्रय, or more specifically, कर्माश्रय, is where संस्कार are lodged. And आलम्बना refers to a catalyst. All of us carry संस्कार within us and some of them may be latent on account of absence of a trigger but when a trigger or a catalyst comes in front of us, our latent संस्कार immediately gets activated and we are compelled to do कर्म. संस्कार are like a stream, says रामानन्द सरस्वती, so if their source is cut off, they will be brought to an end. Adds आदिशंकर, that संस्कार wheel keeps turning continuously as long as अविद्या exists which causes the wheel to turn continuously. Once अविद्या is eliminated, संस्कार vanishes.

अतीतानागतम् स्वरूपतोsस्त्यध्वभेदाद् धर्माणाम् ।। १२।।

अतीत – past, अनागतम् – not yet happened, future, स्वरूपत: – in reality, अस्ति – there is, अध्व – path, time, भेदाद् – the difference, धर्माणाम् – of the characteristics

The past and the future exist in reality, since they differ (from the present only) in terms of the time of (manifestation) of their characteristics

That which does not exist does not come into being, says व्यास and that which exists can never be destroyed. श्रीभगवद्गीता, II.16 reads as “Of the non-existent, there is no being, and of the existent, there is no cessation of being”. पतंजलि says here that all three viz past, present and future exist in reality (and are therefore object of knowledge for a योगी). Principle of सत्कार्यवाद is relevant here meaning that effects are latent in their causes. Past and future may be unmanifest but both are latent in the present and thus their existence is real in a sense. The future does not come from nothing nor does the past fade into nothing and both are perceivable for a योगी who is able to recognize the finer causal levels of the present.

The words “Focus on the present”, “Forget about the past” and “Do not bother about future” are idiotic phrases really. This is because my present is an outcome of some संस्कार that manifested in the past. Equally, my संस्कार of wanting something in the future drives my कर्म today. Thus, one can never really be “present now” if past and future have a significant role in the current structure of “now”. Thus, पतंजलि is stating here that past, present and future “exist” (meaning they are eternal) since संस्कार also “exists”. Put another way, the propensity for love, compassion, violence, hatred, etc are eternally present in my mind but they may not manifest “now” since there may be no circumstances that trigger such संस्कार.

Therefore, given that संस्कार exists (eternally), I will continue to have a past, present and future. And if past, present and future will always exist for me, how can I ever reach the zone of timelessness that पुरुष is supposed to be in eternally? Can संस्कार ever be destroyed since what “exists” can never be destroyed? And if संस्कार can never be destroyed, can one will ever attain मुक्ति? Says आदिशंकर, they are never destroyed in a metaphysical sense but they can become non-productive and this is the meaning intended when we talk about destruction of संस्कार. While they cannot be existentially destroyed, they can be rendered obsolete. Their ability to disturb the चित्त is what is destroyed.

ते व्यक्तसूक्ष्मा गुणात्मान: ।।१३।।

ते – they (past, present, future), व्यक्त – are manifest, सूक्ष्मा – subtle, गुण, आत्मान – having the nature of

The past, present and future have the गुण as their essence and are either manifest or latent

पतंजलि says here that everything that exists is ultimately a combination of त्रिगुण and when these त्रिगुण combine in specific ways and manifest the characteristics of any particular object, we consider the object to be present. When the object deteriorates and its ingredients dissolves into their essences, we consider that process to constitute the past. The essences remain, the physical reality is either manifest or unmanifest. The future is that which remains potentially stored and locked up within the त्रिगुण waiting for the right configuration of circumstances to cause the त्रिगुण to produce it. All three states of past, present and future are thus real and existent.

Vedic view is often described by people as one that sees world as unreal. मिथ्या is translated as illusion (wrongly) and we read English translations and end up learning about the philosophy wrongly. शास्त्र are very clear here – both पुरुष & प्रकृति are real and both “exist” (meaning both are real and eternal). However, while the objects we see and experience in the world are real, they are not substantial. All objects merely represent compounds that exist as combinations of गुण. Difference between ईश्वर & जीव is that while माया exists for both, ईश्वर controls माया while माया controls a जीव.

So if a Benz attracts me and a Beetle repels me, this attraction and repulsion means they have a hold on me. And this hold is because my own गुण-mix sees these objects having a distinct identity and substance and I end up imputing value to the external substance. What is however real are the sub-parts or essences that come together to make these objects. And the purpose for which they come together are भोग or मोक्ष. Once I develop capability to see everything in प्रकृति in their essences, their hold over me lessens. And I will impute value to those objects that take me to मोक्ष and will not impute value to those that deepen भोग. Which then takes me towards freedom.

परिणामैकत्वाद् वस्तुतत्वम् ।। १४।।

परिणाम – transformation, एकत्वाद् – singleness, unity, वस्तु – thing, तत्वम् – that-ness, substantial

The things (of the world) are objectively substantial, due to the uniformity of (the गुण that underpin) all change.

We see objects. These seem substantial (meaning they appear as a distinct substance). However, we know that every object is merely a product of गुण. And when we cognize an object, it is not a substance that is being cognized by the senses. It is a reaction produced by गुण subjectively through the mind and objectively in the form of an object that we see or experience. Essentially, when vibrations in the mind (वृत्ति) occur on account of formation of गुण in a certain manner and they tally with the way गुण manifests as an object, cognition occurs. If there is no such tallying, there is no cognition just as we do not cognize स्वर्ग or certain sounds or do not see sub-atomic particles. Thus, mind makes a mistake in imagining that any particular object is a distinct substance in itself and then passing a judgement that one desires it or otherwise.

Thus, perception of substantiality of an object leads the mind to bondage. Mind wants to utilize the object for its purpose, कर्म is done to seek its fulfilment, experience occurs and with repetition, संस्कार sets in. But गुण being always in motion keep changing both within our minds as well as changing the object. And these changes in the external world and the mutations within प्रकृति are cosmic in nature – universe does not exist for an individual and therefore any certain form that an object takes at a certain point of time is not the entire explanation of such an object. It is only a phenomenon that is presented to the mind but because the mind corresponds to the character of the object for the time being, it mistakes it for total reality.

Really speaking, there is no such thing as an individual object since all objects are after all, composed of same गुण. Then what is the reason for perception of variety in this universe? Without perception of variety, world will cease to exist while drama of existence continues in the belief of diversity of things. And diversity is perceived as “substantial” merely on the ground that the shapes which are the causes of the perception of variety are presented by the mutation of गुण and these गुण will not rest in that shape all the time. Now, with this analysis of an object and its relationship with the mind will help in loosening the bond of कर्म which till now had been strengthened by the notion of substantiality of objects and mind’s perception of such substantiality. And with this, one should detach oneself from judging things individually and hanging one’s life on the form of that particular object.

वस्तुसाम्ये चित्तभेदात् तयोर्विभक्त: पन्था: ।।१५।।

वस्तु – a thing, साम्ये – while remaining common, चित्त,भेदात् – because of difference, तयो: – mind and object of perception, विभक्त: – different location, पन्था – paths

Because there is a multiplicity of minds (perceiving an object), but yet the object remains consistent, there is a difference in the nature of object and the mind (of the observer)

Previous सूत्र made the point that objects seem substantial but this is not so. We had earlier also made the point that objects undergo changes in धर्म, लक्षण, etc. पतंजलि here takes up a point that keeps coming up as to whether objects do not exist except in the minds of individuals. But if object is a mere conviction of our mind, how can we use an object as an आलम्बना to meditate with nothing specific to focus on? Arguments are made that just as we cognize objects in dream world, objects in waking world are also imaginary. पतंजलि counters this. He says that if this is so, how it is that multiple people cognize a chair kept in front of them in the same manner? If it is left to an individual mind, how comes all minds cognize the chair as a chair only and not a stone?

As per वेदांत, objects are not concoctions of the mind of individuals. All objects have an identity of their own and are transcendally unreal but empirically real. Objects thus have both an ideal character and a real character. Object is thus contained both in the cosmic set up of things and in the empirical realm. Mind cannot perceive an airy nothing – so an object has to exist necessarily and this is why there is a mental perception of it. However, unlike normal people who see an object after it has been conditioned by time, space and cause and use their own minds which too are conditioned by time, space and cause, a योगी sees an object in the form of pure existence, the original प्राकृतिक composition or an unconditioned perception.

वेदांत uses terms ईश्वर श्रृष्टि and जीव श्रृष्टि where ईश्वर श्रृष्टि represents the world as ईश्वर created it while जीव श्रृष्टि as how various individual minds perceive it. Perception of the same object is different by ईश्वर & a जीव. योग in संयम takes a योगी to perceive the object as how ईश्वर perceives it. And once वृत्ति are eliminated, योगी perception gets cleared of the conditioning of time, space and cause and he gets to see the object ‘as-it-is’. There are other texts which lay out various arguments on this सूत्र which we can take up to dig more into the wisdom here.

न चैकचित्ततन्त्रं चेद् वस्तु तद् अप्रमाणकं तदा किं स्यात् ।। १६।।

न – not, च – and, एक – one, चित्त, तन्त्रं – dependent, चेद् – if, वस्तु – things, तद् – that (mind), अप्रमाणकं – not evidenced (by cognition), तदा – then, किं – what, स्यात् – happens (to it)

An object is not dependent on a single mind (for its evidence); if it were, then what happens to it when it is not perceived (by that particular mind)

व्यास here counters a view prevalent among certain schools that the whole world is nothing but an imagination within our minds (typically seem among Buddhists). Asks व्यास that if a pot that exists is merely a mental construct, what happens to the pot when the mind goes into समाधि or is merely distracted to some other object? Do other people also stop seeing the pot? If we can only perceive the front of a person, does it mean the back does not exist? Can such a person have a stomach without having a back?

Adds आदिशंकर that if a world’s objective reality is merely a mental construction of a person, conventional social interactions will fully break down since there is no reason for people’s mental construction of social norms to overlap in any coherent manner. Can any sane and standardized social systems evolve from independently created mental imaginings? Objects of the world can therefore only be independent entities, as minds too, are independent entities. They unite to fulfil a purpose which is to provide पुरुष with भोग or मोक्ष.

तदुपरागपेक्षित्वाच् चित्तस्य वस्तु ज्ञाताज्ञातम् ।। १७।।

तद् – it (the mind), उपराग – coloured by, pervaded, अपेक्षित्वात् – depending on, चित्तस्य – of the चित्त, वस्तु – object, ज्ञात – is known, अज्ञातम् – is not known

A thing is either known or not known by the mind depending on whether it is noticed by the mind

Arguments continue here against the view that the world is just a mental imagination. Objects remain known viz ज्ञात or remain unknown viz अज्ञातम् to the mind. If mind is like iron and sense objects like magnets, if objects are in the vicinity, they pull the mind towards themselves. And the mind gets coloured by the sense object, then such an object becomes known. चित्त assumes the form of an object just as a cloth becomes coloured when it is dipped in a dye. More specifically, intelligence aspect of चित्त internally replicates the external or physical features of the object, it assumes the shape and contours of the object physically and then presents the image to पुरुष.

Note that चित्त remains inert and unconscious throughout this process since it is a प्राकृतिक aspect. Ultimate experience of being aware of the object is the prerogative of awareness of पुरुष only. In this way, चित्त itself becomes the object in terms of पुरुष’s awareness. Says आदिशंकर – if all objects in the world are indeed mental imagination, the mind would either be omniscient (since it should theoretically be able to create and thus gain knowledge of everything) or it would not create any objects of awareness, and thus nothing would be known – both of which are untrue.

Why is the above being conveyed? One – that objects exist independent of the mind and do not get created by an individual mind. This is why they are aware of some objects at one time and not aware of many others. Two – mind is subject to change as it comes into contact with an object via the senses and moulds itself. And since our definition of our that is eternal is that it must not be subject to change and since mind changes continually, it cannot be eternal. And while our real identity of पुरुष is eternal, mind cannot be seen as पुरुष. So is पुरुष also subject to change? This will be covered in the next सूत्र.

सदा ज्ञाताश्चित्तवृत्तयस्तत्प्रभो: पुरुषस्यापरिणामित्वात् ।। १८।।

सदा – always, ज्ञाता: – are known, चित्त, वृत्तय: – changing state, तत् – that (mind), प्रभो: – of the master, पुरुषस्य – of the पुरुष, अपरिणामित्वात् – because of it not changing

The permutations of the mind are always known to its master, the पुरुष, because of the unchanging nature of पुरुष.

Change can be perceived only by an unchanging substratum (very important sentence). Awareness of पुरुष is however constant and unchanging. Says व्यास that पुरुष must be unchanging because if it were constantly changing by nature, as is the case with the mind, then its objects of awareness (viz the चित्त वृत्ति) will sometimes be known and sometimes unknown. This is not the case since पुरुष is always aware of the वृत्ति in its चित्त (even in deep sleep). पुरुष knows when the mind cognizes objects and पुरुष also knows when the mind is not cognizing objects. And given that पुरुष knows both aspects of the mind, पुरुष is separate from the mind and is not subject to change.

Mind, on the other hand, is always changing (or transforming) and therefore its objects are sometimes in its sphere of perception and sometimes not. The objectivity of the mind is its quality of being modified by (or identified with) sound, colour, etc. Action of sound, etc., excites the senses which in turn activates the mind. This is how perception of objects takes place. It is not possible that modifications are there without being known or manifest to the Seer. If the fluctuations revealed to the Seer were sometimes unknown, then the Seer would not have been a perpetual absolute Seer but mutable – meaning that It will be a Seer and a non-Seer – which is not how it sees the mind. So पुरुष is expressed as the unchanging Seer since It is aware of the mind at all times.

न तत् संवभासं दृश्यत्वात् ।। १९।।

न – not, तत् – it (the mind), संवभासं – self-illuminating, दृश्यत्वात् – because of its nature as that which is to be perceived

Nor is the mind self-illuminating, because of its nature as the object of perception

Question often comes up as to whether mind is itself consciousness or चैतन्यम्? Is fire स्वभास viz self-Illuminating? The fact that one need not light up a fire to become fire, fire in that sense is स्वभास. Similarly, is mind स्वभास? No – says Hindu thought. When one says “I am angry”, “I am afraid”, etc., the mind in the form of fear or anger is the object of awareness requiring a distinct form of awareness, an “I”. Else, says वाचस्पति, it would be like saying “cooking is cooked”, “going is gone” – the act and the object of activity cannot be the same thing. Says भोजराज that if the pot perceived were identical to the perceiving subject, one should rather say “I am the pot” rather than “I see the pot”.

Even in the fire example, one allows that fire illuminates itself without the need for another agent, nonetheless, fire itself is an object that is known by something outside of itself, namely the perceiver of fire seeing through the instrument of an eye. Another outside entity is required to experience and establish the luminosity of fire in the first place. In short, mind being an object of perception cannot be subjectively aware or self – illuminating. Whatever illumination it seems to exude is the result of it being permeated by the illumination of the awareness of पुरुष just as an iron ball becoming fiery due to it being placed in and permeated by fire. In short, subject and object must be distinct entities

एकसमये चोभयानवधारणम् ।। २०।।

एक – one, समये – time, च – and, उभय – both, अनवधारणम् – nondiscernment

There cannot be discernment of both (the mind and the object it perceives) at the same time

Though it may look like mind can concentrate on several facts and understand many things at the same time, it is not so. Continuity of perception of mind is something like continuity of pictures in a cinema – it is not really continuous – there are discrete links in the cabin of movement and the mind jumps, flits from one function to another with such velocity that it looks as if there is a continuity of cognition. It cannot think two things at the same time. If this is acceptable, then we must also accept that the mind cannot therefore be a subject and an object at the same time. And given that in discussions so far, we have seen that mind is indeed an object, we must treat or know the mind as we know other objects – and not see it as operating as a subject and an object simultaneously.

And it is impossible to know the subject or the knower since a key idea to note that anything that is “known” becomes an object. A pure subject is not existent in the world since all objects including the individual who may be seen as empirical subject. But we as an empirical subject cannot be the real subject because we are able to cognize ourselves and as long as there is self-recollection and reflective consciousness in our own minds, we stand in the position of objects, not as a subject. And we have all characteristics that objects have viz mutability, movement, transition of physical, biological, social, psychological, we are perpetually dying and entering into another condition, our individuality can never be a subject.

योग is thus an endeavour to turn back चैतन्यम् into pure subjectivity and know the subject as it is in itself, independent of all instruments of knowledge. Realization of our subject reality is impossible as long as there is a belief that the mind is a subject. We cannot assume independence, ultimately, as long as our knowledge is a procession of ideas transmitted through the mind in respect of the objects of sense. योग is also difficult because as we read about the mind, we find that we are killing ourselves, as it were. It is like a suicide committed by the empirical subject.

And how can one ever conceive of death of one’s own self? Here, the return of the reflected reality in the form of an individual to its original source – an absorption of the objective character of knowledge into its universal subjectivity – it is the so called death of empirical existence. But it is to be seen as death just as death of sickness gives us back our good health. Death of sickness is not suicide – it is merely recovery of our original healthy state, स्वस्थ (स्व meaning original state and स्थ means to be situated and we are thus returning to our original and staying stable in our original healthy state)