Sūtra 1.3

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Sūtra 1.3:

तदा द्रष्टुः स्वरूपेऽवस्थानम् ॥ १.३ ॥

tadā draṣṭuḥ svarūpe'vasthānam || 1.3 ||

tadā—then, at that time, at the time of concentration. draṣṭuḥ—of the seer, of the soul. sva-rūpe—in his own nature, or state, avasthānam—resting, standing, remaining, lying.

3. Then the seer stands in his own nature.

The Sankhya-pravachana commentary of Vyasa

[English translation of the 7th century commentary by Vyāsa called the Sāṅkhya-pravacana, Vyāsabhāṣya or Yogabhāṣya]

[Sanskrit text for commentary available]

There being no object of cognition in that state of the mind, what is the state of the conscious principle (puruṣa) who has identified himself with the cognitions of the Will-to-be? “Then the seer stands in his own nature.” At that time the power of consciousness is established in its own nature, as in the state of perfect freedom. In the outgoing mind it appears to be not so centred in its own nature, though in reality it is the same.

The Gloss of Vachaspati Mishra

[English translation of the 9th century Tattvavaiśāradī by Vācaspatimiśra]

Now says he, in order to introduce the next aphorism:—

“There being no object of cognition in that state of the mind, &c.” The word ‘what’ is inquisitive. The meaning is this. The conscious principle is always perceived as the very self of the cognitions of the Will-to-know taking on the forms of various objects. He is never perceived as separate from the cognitions of the Will-to-know. For this reason the knowledge of the will-to-be is of the very nature of the conscious principle, as light of the sun. And it does not exist when the mind is in a state of residual potency (saṃskāra). And no existence can last as such when it has given up its nature.

Let it be so. But then why does not the Puruṣa know the Will-to-be in its state of residual potency? To meet this he says:—“There being no object of cognition, &c.”

It is not the Will-to-know alone, but the Will-to-know which has the objects of the Puruṣa to achieve that is the sphere of consciousness. The objects of the Puruṣa are discriminative knowledge and the experience of the objective world. These two no longer exist in the state of inhibition (nirodha). Therefore the non-existence of objects in that state is established. The author gives the answer by the aphorism—“Then the seer stands in his own nature.”

By the word ‘svarūpa’ (his own nature), the author excludes the appearances of the calm, the ruffled and the forgetful (the Santa, the Ghora and the Mūḍha) which have been fastened upon it. The nature of the Puruṣa is consciousness alone, unaffected by the contacts (of objects placed alongside), not the cognitive action of the Will-to-know appearing as calm, &c. This is of the nature of contacts. It is like the redness which appears in a crystal pure white by nature, when a Japa flower is placed in contact therewith. And it is not necessary that when the things placed in contact are removed, the thing with which they have been placed in contact, should also disappear. That would mean encroachment of the one into the sphere of the other. The locative case is used, because the thing and the nature of the thing are conceived as being separate, although in reality the same, and not distinct.

The same meaning is rendered clear by the Commentator:—

“At that time the power of consciousness, &c.” At that time, in the state of restraint and not in the state of outgoing.

Let that be so. But then the power of consciousness, not standing in its own nature when the Will-to-be is in the state of outgoing activity, and becoming established in that state when in the state of inhibition; becomes changeful. If it be said that it remains established in its own nature even in the state of outgoing activity, then there would be no difference between the states of outgoing activity and inhibition. For this reason says the author

‘In the outwardly inclined mind, &c.’

The power of consciousness, constant because standing alone, is never disturbed in its own nature; and for this reason is the same inactivity as in the state of restraint. The mother-of-pearl does not for certain, put on and give up its true nature, while becoming the object of true or false knowledge. The knower, however, fancies it to be something different from what it really is.

In relation to the Inhibitive Trance, the Cognitive Trance also is a state of outgoing activity.