Now it is said [in the Yoga Sutras, ii. 4], "Ignorance is the field [or place of origin, _i.e._, source] of the others, whether they be dormant, extenuated, intercepted, or simple." They are said to be "dormant" when they are not manifested for want of something to wake them up; they are called "extenuated" when, through one's meditating on something that is opposed to them, they are rendered inert; they are called "intercepted" when they are overpowered by some other strong "affliction;" they are called "simple" when they produce their several effects in the direct vicinity of what co-operates with them.

This has been expressed by Vachaspati Misra, in his Gloss on Vyasa's Commentary, in the following memorial stanza:--

"The dormant 'afflictions' are found in those souls which are absorbed in the _tattvas_ [_i.e._, not embodied, but existing in an interval of mundane destruction]; the 'extenuated'[408] are found in _yogins_; but the 'intercepted' and the 'simple' in those who are in contact with worldly objects."

"No one proposes the fourth solution of the compound _avidya_ as a _dvandva_ compound,[409] where both portions are equally predominant, because we cannot recognise here two equally independent subjects.

Therefore under any one of these three admissible alternatives[410]

the common notion of ignorance as being the cause of the 'afflictions'

would be overthrown."

[We do not, however, concede this objector's view], because we may have recourse to the other kind of negation called _paryudasa_ [where the affirmative part is emphatic], and maintain that _avidya_ means a contradictory [or _wrong_] kind of knowledge, the reverse of _vidya_; and so it has been accepted by ancient writers. Thus it has been said--

"The particle implying 'negation' does not signify 'absence'

[or 'non-existence'] when connected with a noun or a root; thus the words _abrahma?a_ and _adharma_ respectively signify, 'what is other than a Brahman' and 'what is contrary to justice.'"

And again--

"We are to learn all the uses of words from the custom of the ancient writers; therefore a word must not be wrested from the use in which it has been already employed."

Vachaspati also says,[411] "The connection of words and their meanings depends on general consent for its certainty; and since we occasionally see that a _tatpurusha_ negation, where the latter portion is properly predominant, may overpower the direct meaning of this latter portion by its contradiction of it, we conclude that even here too [in _avidya_] the real meaning is something contrary to _vidya_" [_i.e._, the negative "non-knowledge" becomes ultimately the positive "ignorance"[412]]. It is with a view to this that it is said in the Yoga Aphorisms [ii. 5], "Ignorance is the notion that the non-eternal, the impure, pain, and the non-soul are (severally) eternal, pure, pleasure, and soul." _Viparyaya_, "misconception," is defined as "the imagining of a thing in what is not that thing,"[413]

[_i.e._, in its opposite]; as, for instance, the imagining the "eternal" in a "non-eternal" thing, _i.e._, a jar, or the imagining the "pure" in the "impure" body,[414] when it has been declared by a proverbial couplet[415]--

"The wise recognise the body as impure, from its original place [the womb],--from its primal seed,--from its composition [of humours, &c.],--from perspiration,--from death [as even a Brahman's body defiles],--and from the fact that it has to be made pure by rites."

So,--in accordance with the principle enounced in the aphorism (ii.

15), "To the discriminating everything is simply pain, through the pain which arises in the ultimate issue of everything,[416] or through the anxiety to secure it [while it is enjoyed], or through the latent impressions which it leaves behind, and also from the mutual opposition of the influences of the three qualities" [in the form of pleasure, pain, and stupid indifference],--ignorance transfers the idea of "pleasure" to what is really "pain," as, _e.g._, garlands, sandal-wood, women, &c.; and similarly it conceives the "non-soul,"

_e.g._, the body, &c., as the "soul." As it has been said--

"But ignorance is when living beings transfer the notion of 'soul' to the 'non-soul,' as the body, &c.;

"This causes bondage; but in the abolition thereof is liberation."

Thus this ignorance consists of four kinds.[417]

But [it may be objected] in these four special kinds of ignorance should there not be given some general definition applying to them all, as otherwise their special characteristics cannot be established? For thus it has been said by Bha??a k.u.marila--

"'Without some general definition, a more special definition cannot be given by itself; therefore it must not be even mentioned here.'"

This, however, must not be urged here, as it is sufficiently met by the general definition of misconception, already adduced above, as "the imagining of a thing in its opposite."

"Egoism" (_asmita_) is the notion that the two separate things, the soul and the quality of purity,[418] are one and the same, as is said (ii. 6), "Egoism is the identifying of the seer with the power of sight." "Desire" (_raga_) is a longing, in the shape of a thirst, for the means of enjoyment, preceded by the remembrance of enjoyment, on the part of one who has known joy. "Aversion" (_dvesha_) is the feeling of blame felt towards the means of pain, similarly preceded by the remembrance of pain, on the part of one who has known it. This is expressed in the two aphorisms, "Desire is what dwells on pleasure;"

"Aversion is what dwells on pain" (ii. 7, 8).

Here a grammatical question may be raised, "Are we to consider this word _a.n.u.sayin_ ('dwelling') as formed by the _k?it_ affix _?ini_ in the sense of 'what is habitual,' or the _taddhita_ affix _ini_ in the sense of _matup_? It cannot be the former, since the affix _?ini_ cannot be used after a root compounded with a preposition as _a.n.u.si_; for, as the word _supi_ has already occurred in the Sutra, iii. 2, 4, and has been exerting its influence in the following sutras, this word must have been introduced a second time in the Sutra, iii. 2, 78, _supy ajatau ?inis tachchhilye_,[419] on purpose to exclude prepositions, as these have no case terminations; and even if we did strain a point to allow them, still it would follow by the Sutra, vii.

2, 115, _acho n?iti_,[420] that the radical vowel must be subject to _v?iddhi_, and so the word must be _a.n.u.sayin_, in accordance with the a.n.a.logy of such words as _atisayin_, &c. Nor is the latter view tenable (_i.e._, that it is the _taddhita_ affix _ini_[421]), since _ini_ is forbidden by the technical verse--

'These two affixes[422] are not used after a monosyllable nor a _k?it_ formation, nor a word meaning 'genus,' nor with a word in the locative case;'

and the word _a.n.u.saya_ is clearly a _k?it_ formation as it ends with the affix _ach_[423] [which brings it under this prohibition, and so renders it insusceptible of the affix _ini_]. Consequently, the word _a.n.u.sayin_ in the Yoga aphorism is one the formation of which it is very hard to justify."[424] This cavil, however, is not to be admitted; since the rule is only to be understood as applying generally, not absolutely, as it does not refer to something of essential importance. Hence the author of the V?itti has said--

"The word _iti_, as implying the idea of popular acceptation, is everywhere connected with the examples of this rule[425] [_i.e._, it is not an absolute law]."

Therefore, sometimes the prohibited cases are found, as _karyin_, _karyika_ [where the affixes are added after a _k?it_ formation], _ta??ulin_, _ta??ulika_ [where they are added after a word meaning "genus"]. Hence the prohibition is only general, not absolute, after _k?it_ formations and words meaning "genus," and therefore the use of the affix _ini_ is justified, although the word _a.n.u.saya_ is formed by a _k?it_ affix. This doubt therefore is settled.

The fifth "affliction," called "tenacity of mundane existence"

(_abhinivesa_), is what prevails in the case of all living beings, from the worm up to the philosopher, springing up daily, without any immediate cause, in the form of a dread, "May I not be separated from the body, things sensible, &c.," through the force of the impression left by the experience of the pain of the deaths which were suffered in previous lives, this is proved by universal experience, since every individual has the wish, "May I not cease to be," "May I be." This is declared in the aphorism, "Tenacity of mundane existence, flowing on through its own nature, is notorious even in the case of the philosopher" [ii. 9]. These five, "ignorance," &c., are well known as the "afflictions" (_klesa_), since they afflict the soul, as bringing upon it various mundane troubles.

[We next describe the _karmasaya_ of ii. 12, the "stock of works" or "merits" in the mind.] "Works" (_karman_) consist of enjoined or forbidden actions, as the _jyotish?oma_ sacrifice, brahmanicide, &c.

"Stock" (_asaya_) is the balance of the fruits of previous works, which lie stored up in the mind in the form of "mental deposits" of merit or demerit, until they ripen in the individual soul's own experience as "rank," "years," and "enjoyment" [ii. 13].

Now "concentration" [_yoga_] consists [by i. 2] in "the suppression of the modifications of the thinking principle," which stops the operation of the "afflictions," &c.; and this "suppression" is not considered to be merely the non-existence of the modifications [_i.e._, a mere negation], because, if it were a mere negation, it could not produce positive impressions on the mind; but it is rather the site of this non-existence,[426]--a particular state of the thinking principle, called by the four names [which will be fully described hereafter], _madhumati_, _madhupratika_, _visoka_, and _sa?skaraseshata_. The word _nirodha_ thus corresponds to its etymological explanation as "that in which the modifications of the thinking principle, right notion, misconception, &c., are suppressed (_nirudhyante_). This suppression of the modifications is produced by "exercise" and "dispa.s.sion" [i. 12]. "Exercise is the repeated effort that the internal organ shall remain in its proper state" [i. 13].

This "remaining in its proper state" is a particular kind of development, whereby the thinking principle remains in its natural state, unaffected by those modifications which at different times a.s.sume the form of revealing, energising, and controlling.[427]

"Exercise" is an effort directed to this, an endeavour again and again to reduce the internal organ to such a condition. The locative case, _sthitau_, in the aphorism is intended to express the object or aim, as in the well-known phrase, "He kills the elephant for its skin."[428] "Dispa.s.sion is the consciousness of having overcome desire in him who thirsts after neither the objects that are seen nor those that are heard of in revelation" [i. 15]. "Dispa.s.sion" is thus the reflection, "These objects are subject to me, not I to them," in one who feels no interest in the things of this world or the next, from perceiving the imperfections attached to them.

Now, in order to reduce the "afflictions" which hinder meditation and to attain meditation, the _yogin_ must first direct his attention to practical concentration, and "exercise" and "dispa.s.sion" are of especial use in its attainment. This has been said by K?ish?a in the Bhagavad Gita [vi. 3]--

"Action is the means to the sage who wishes to rise to _yoga_;

But to him who has risen to it, tranquillity is said to be the means."

Patanjali has thus defined the practical _yoga_: "Practical concentration is mortification, recitation of texts, and resignation to the Lord" [ii. 1]. Yajnavalkya has described "mortification"--

"By the way prescribed in sacred rule, by the difficult chandraya?a fast, &c.,

"Thus to dry up the body they call the highest of all mortifications."[429]

"Recitation of texts" is the repet.i.tion of the syllable Om, the _gayatri_, &c. Now these _mantras_ are of two kinds, Vaidik and Tantrik. The Vaidik are also of two kinds, those chanted and those not chanted. Those chanted are the _samans_; those not chanted are either in metre, _i.e._, the _?ichas_, or in prose, _i.e._, the _yaju?shi_, as has been said by Jaimini,[430] "Of these, that is a _?ich_ in which by the force of the sense there is a definite division into _padas_ [or portions of a verse]; the name _saman_ is applied to chanted portions; the word _yajus_ is applied to the rest." Those _mantras_ are called Tantrik which are set forth in sacred books that are directed to topics of voluntary devotion;[431] and these are again threefold, as female, male, and neuter; as it has been said--

"The _mantras_ are of three kinds, as female, male, and neuter:

"The female are those which end in the wife of fire (_i.e._, the exclamation _svaha_); the neuter those which end in _namas_;

"The rest are male, and considered the best. They are all-powerful in mesmerising another's will, &c."

They are called "all-powerful" (_siddha_) because they counteract all defects in their performance, and produce their effect even when the ordinary consecrating ceremonies, as bathing, &c., have been omitted.

Now the peculiar "consecrating ceremonies" (_sa?skara_) are ten, and they have been thus described in the _Sarada-tilaka_--

"There are said to be ten preliminary ceremonies which give to _mantras_ efficacy:

"These mantras are thus made complete; they are thoroughly consecrated.

"The 'begetting,' the 'vivifying,' the 'smiting,' the 'awakening,'

"The 'sprinkling,' the 'purifying,' the 'fattening,'

"The 'satisfying,' the 'illumining,' the 'concealing,'--these are the ten consecrations of _mantras_.

"The 'begetting' (_janana_) is the extracting of the _mantra_ from its vowels and consonants.