{"id":35402,"date":"2018-03-13T01:22:40","date_gmt":"2018-03-13T01:22:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/?p=35402"},"modified":"2023-07-22T18:52:29","modified_gmt":"2023-07-22T18:52:29","slug":"on-yoga-sutras-five-translations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/on-yoga-sutras-five-translations\/","title":{"rendered":"On Yoga Sutras\u2019 Five Translations"},"content":{"rendered":"
A long time ago when I was just starting my study of yoga \u2013 guess it was 1986 or 1987 \u2013 one of my groupmates came with a clandestine reprint of a brochure made with the help of factory printing office. Though, it was not even a brochure: just several unbound sheets bearing the title Patanjali\u2019s Aphorisms. And it is this text \u2013 that I later learned to be the reprint of Yoga Sutras English version in the translation of Vivekananda as rendered [into Russian \u2013 trans. note] by Popov in 1906 \u2013 that my journey into the insights of this great text started with.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
In a few years (these were probably early 90ies) I suggested that my friends who had organized a kind of esoteric publishing house bring together all YS translations available at that time and arrange them sutra by sutra to help one\u2019s working with this text. Studying Sanskrit was just a plan for the future and I thought that understanding the true contents of the text would be possible on the basis of the translations comparative analysis. The translations that were vastly different even on the surface. This is how the brochure Yoga Sutras: Four Variants of Translation appeared. Soon it was complemented by the fifth one, while the brochure formed the basis of the file Yoga Sutras: Five Variants of Translation that\u2019s been actively circulating throughout the web [the Russian-speaking segment \u2013 transl. note]. Though, maybe I was not the only one whom this idea actually occurred\u2026<\/div>\n
Anyhow, I believe this file has helped may searchers and practitioners, but I think it\u2019s time every translation version is given a detailed and competent estimation.<\/div>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n
The translation of Swami Vivekananda\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
First of all I should say this translation is rather good as an independent text. There is a particular individuality in it; it is rather simple and inspiring, and it encourages to ask further questions. In addition to this we should admit that due to simplicity of its English the translation of the text into the Russian language has been rather precise.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Some 15-20 years ago Vladimir Danchenko made another attempt of rendering the text from English into Russian (this version is available in the Internet), though in actual fact other than having eliminated a few irregularities he has not changed the text much. Nevertheless, even in consideration of the fact that I think the translation of Vivekananda to be reasonably good, it still has a vast number of faults<\/b>. Besides it is obvious that the translation was substantially affected by Ballantyne\u2019s translation of Yoga Sutras with the commentaries of Bhoja. And I would actually wonder whether the translation of Vivekananda is a totally independent work. Let us study the first page of his version [the author originally analyzes the Russian translation of Vivekananda\u2019s rendering of YS, but as the Russian target text in this respect follows the English source text, we\u2019ve done the same with the English one \u2013 transl. note].<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\"\"<\/div>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
I have marked in red the words that were absent in the original text. We can see Vivekananda to have added many \u201cextra\u201d words to the original lines. Most of these words had been borrowed (as if had stuck to the basic text) from the commentaries of Bhoja-vritti, and in this context one cannot claim they are absolutely odd. But if truth be told, we understand that we somewhat modify our understanding of Yoga Sutras by adding the tint of Bhoja\u2019s ideas. Besides let us note that Vivekananda sets forth the text of the sutra only, and in order to explain these extra words we should admit he was familiar with Bhoja-vritti, either the original text or the translation of Ballantyne.<\/div>\n
The yellow colour highlights the words that have been translated either not very precisely or in the way they restrain or trivialize the sense. For instance, \u201cNow concentration is explained.\u201d But the text reads as atha yog\u0101nu\u015b\u0101sanam \u2013 \u201cnow yoga<\/b> is explained.\u201d One may of course translate the word \u201cyoga\u201d as \u201cconcentration\u201d, but in the next line yoga\u015bcittav\u1e5bttinirodha\u1e25 the word \u201cyoga\u201d is preserved. There is a piece of carelessness here, isn\u2019t there? Especially if we take into account the fact that he uses the word \u201cconcentration\u201d to further translate \u201csamadhi\u201d This results in confusion of the text terminology.<\/div>\n
And finally the purple is used to show the cases in that one and the same Sanskrit word is interpreted with the help of different terms, that, as you understand, perplexes the reader even more. For instance, the \u201cpramana\u201d vritti in one case is translated as \u201cright knowledge\u201d (1.6.) (that, to be absolutely honest, is not an exact variant), while in the other line it is translated as \u201cproofs\u201d(1.7.) The same with the word \u201cvrittis\u201d: it is translated as either \u201cforms\u201d (1.2.) or \u201cmodifications\u201d (1.4.). The latter complies with vritti as understood by Bhoja who explained vritti as \u201cparinamas\u201d \u2013 modifications.<\/div>\n
If watching this one page does not do, I shall give a detailed explanation of some highlighted issues to a more meticulous reader. Others may skip the part and proceed reading the analysis of the second text.<\/div>\n
Vivekananda translates \u201cchitta<\/i>\u201d as the \u201cmind-stuff\u201d (1.2.). This has been definitely borrowed from Ballantyne\u2019s work.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
To speak frankly, the idea of substantiating chitta is not that evident, though really insightful. Later translators gave up the concept \u2013 though they had better not.<\/div>\n
In the 3rd sutra \u201cdrashtar\u201d \u2013 \u201cthe seer\u201d \u2013 is identified with purusha that \u201crests in his own (unmodified) state.\u201d This translation very much taints and simplifies the understanding [of the practice]. The term \u201cdrashtar\u201d indeed stems from the root-word \u201cdd\u1e5b\u015b\u201d \u2013 to see, drashtar is the one who sees, and \u201ctada drashtuh svaroope avasthanam\u201d means \u201cthen the drashtar rests in its own state, its innate form.\u201d Drashtar is the feeling of the inner observer. It is a specific mind experience. While when we say \u201cpurusa\u201d we turn to another type of experience. The word \u201cpurusa\u201d derives from the root \u201cpur\u201d. It has been preserved in Russian in the word \u201cpolnyi\u201d [meaning \u201cfull\u201d. The English \u201cfill\/full\u201d in the same meaning also stems from this PIE root *pele- (1 )\u2013 transl.note]. The experience of \u201cpurusa\u201d is self-awareness of one\u2019s inner substantival \u201cSelf\u201d, and this is a totally different \u2013 this time a substantial one \u2013 view of the subject inner essence. From phenomenological description of the first shloka we shift to an objective-substantive mode. And here the khsatriya nature of the interpreter can be seen. For we know kshatriays to be not much fond of highbrow philosophy, they are concrete people. As soon as Vivekananda added the category of \u201cpurusa\u201d, he actually tinted all yoga practices with a simplifying hue.<\/div>\n
And the next word \u2013 \u201cunmodified\u201d \u2013 though added in brackets, comes as a bold philosophical assumption. For if it is unmodified [the Russian version of the translation reads as \u201cnatural\u201d \u2013 transl.note], we shall finally find ourselves to have it. And the entirety of the spiritual practice is thus set on a different track: we must come close to original, natural form, adopt the \u201csimple life\u201d etc. The idea of breakthrough, evolvement is now lost. It is not the complete range of YS possible interpretations that the reader sees now, but one perspective only.<\/div>\n
In the 11th sutra \u201cmemory is when the (Vrttis of) perceived subjects do not slip away\u2026\u201d the word asanpramosha is translated as \u201cnot slipping away.\u201d But by adding the bracketed (Vrttis of) Vivekananda turns it into \u201cnot slipping away of vrittis\u201d. And this is wrong. Patanjali defined memory as not slipping away of anubhava, i.e. of the experience. So why adding here vritti, the vritti that had been clearly determined by Patanjali as pramana, viparyaya, vikalpa, nidra and smritti. How can it not slip away? Moreover, it is incorrect from the position of logic, since memory \u2013 smritti \u2013 is thus defined as not slipping away of smritti. There\u2019s an obvious logic paradox in this translation.<\/div>\n
The 12th sutra. \u201cTheir [of Vrttis \u2013 transl.note] control is by practice and non-attachment.\u201d The word \u201ccontrol\u201d [in Russian translation the word \u201cmastering\u201d is used \u2013 transl.note] once again reveals the kshatriya nature of the author: now we master, control vrittis. Though the original line has the word \u201cnirodha\u201d and reads as follows: abhy\u0101savair\u0101gy\u0101bhy\u0101\u1e43 tannirodha\u1e25, i.e. \u201cthis nirodha – tannirodha\u1e25- is attained by means of abhyasa, the exercise, and vairagya\u201d. Vivekananda translated the nirodha of the line 2 as \u201crestraining\u201d, while here it goes as \u201ccontrol\u201d.<\/div>\n
There is another odd addition to the 14th line wandering from one Russian translation to the other one \u2013 in case these \u201ctranslations\u201d are not based on the original. \u201cIts [of abhyasa] ground becomes firm by long, constant efforts with great<\/b> love (for the end to be attained).\u201d The Sanskrit original, unfortunately, has nothing of great love in it. Or, to, the speak correctly, the root \u201csev\u201d which basic meaning implies \u201cserve\u201d and \u201cfollow\u201d has a figurative meaning of \u201chaving sex\u201d in reference to the BDSM-context that was well-known in the Indian erotica, but it is doubtful that it was this meaning that Patanjali implied. Most probably the idea of \u201cgreat love for the end to be attained\u201d spoke in favour of Vivekananda\u2019s character. He was a passionate person, the \u201clion of yoga\u201d.<\/div>\n
In this way, the translation of Vivekananda, though of flaming spirit, substantially polarizes and simplifies the understanding of yoga, charging the reader with the ideas of the author rather than of Patanjali proper.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The translation of E. P. Ostrovskaya and V. I. Rudoi\u00a0<\/b><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n
In 1992 they published a unique Russian translation of YS done by academic scholars who had \u201cofficially\u201d studied yogic texts. The book also included the translation of Vyasa\u2019s commentaries. I read this version immediately after its publishing and I must confess that at that time<\/b> I did not like it. Why? Because it was rather intricate. And for a long while I was giving it a cold shoulder. And only after some years of studying Sanskrit I\u2019ve found the translation to have many advantages.<\/div>\n
The fact is that Yoga Sutras are written in a very specific style, very neat and concise. They go almost without verbs. All actions are expressed either with the help of adverbs, or adjectives, or samasas (compound words) etc., and finding congruent and adequate Russian analogues for these grammar structures is a tough job. While Ostrovskaya and Rudoi did manage! From this perspective this translation variant is simply very nice<\/b> \u2013 it is immaculate from the position of grammar<\/b>! I should recommend reading this translation to those who study Sanskrit and know the vocabulary but have still not leant the syntaxes \u2013 to understand the specifics of the Sanskrit phrasing. But alas \u2013 it is absolutely inapplicable for a practitioner<\/b>, since its language is too specific, it can be understood only by interpreters who did the job and to the followers of their academic tradition. All the others need another translation \u2013 into understandable Russian. For instance, the phase \u201cthe mind that is deprived of verbal references\u201d shall be an overkill even for a literate one\u2026<\/div>\n
To speak in general, there are two schools of academic translation. At one school they believe complete translation is essential, i.e. the translation done in the way that every word of the source text is translated in the target text. The disciples of this approach consider every word to have an equivalent in the other language, and your inability to find it speaks merely about your laziness. And in case in your final translation half of the Sanskrit words has been preserved, then it is just a half-product, it\u2019s like being served a very underdone steak or half-done potatoes with an offer that you finish cooking it yourself.<\/div>\n
The other school speaks on the contrary: not every term can be matched with its equivalent. And some terms are to be preserved \u201cas is\u201d or it least furnished with a detailed clarification. I\u2019d rather support the latter idea since having my first degree in physics I understand that not all physical categories can be translated into common language. For instance, how can you explain in ordinary language the meaning of \u201cwave function\u201d or \u201cHamiltonian [function]\u201d? These are specific terms which essence can be comprehended only by deep delving into math or with the help of other terms.<\/div>\n
Ostrovskaya and Rudoi were strictly obeying the first concept: each and every term needs a translation equivalent. And thus it happened that this brilliant, perfect translation has become absolutely unusable. Because the translation was done not just into Russian, but into the Russian of their own. In order to understand this translation a common practitioner needs to understand the logic of the interpretation and the translators\u2019 mode of thought. Besides, many of the translated words have a different meaning in different spheres of the humanitarian (let alone the mundane) knowledge. For instance, the \u201cmind\u201d seen by a philosopher is a far cry from the same when considered from the position of a psychologist.<\/div>\n
But he who knows these nuances can still use the translation. Since I know the language and the sutras original reading, I took the trouble to compose a glossary that can be used as a basis for the so called \u201crestored translation\u201d. That is, the text in that all disputable terms with the help of autocorrect function are substituted with their source Sanskrit form.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Here is the glossary:<\/div>\n
Klesa \u2013 impurity, affect (2)<\/div>\n
Vikalpa \u2013 mental constructing<\/div>\n
Abhyasa \u2013 practice<\/div>\n
Vairagya \u2013 dispassionateness<\/div>\n
Isvara \u2013 remains untranslated<\/div>\n
Purusa \u2013 also untranslated<\/div>\n
Prasadanam \u2013 purification<\/div>\n
Samadhi \u2013 concentration<\/div>\n
Tapas \u2013 asceticism<\/div>\n
Isvara pranidhana \u2013 (reverential) trust in Isvara<\/div>\n
Asmita \u2013 egoism<\/div>\n
Raga \u2013 attraction, appeal<\/div>\n
Dvesa \u2013 hostility<\/div>\n
Abhinivesa \u2013 self-existent zest for life<\/div>\n
Dhyana \u2013 yogic contemplation<\/div>\n
Karma \u2013 unfortunately, left untranslated<\/div>\n
Punya \u2013 virtue<\/div>\n
Apunya \u2013 vice<\/div>\n
Sanskara \u2013 a forming factor<\/div>\n
Vasana \u2013 unconscious impression<\/div>\n
Kaivalya \u2013 deliverance and apartness (2)<\/div>\n
Yama \u2013 self-control<\/div>\n
Bhoga \u2013 experience<\/div>\n
Niyama \u2013 adherence to [religious] principles<\/div>\n
Pratyaya \u2013 cognitive contents<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
But there is one more problem. The case is that though in lexical terms the translation of many words is correct, the used Russian words have their specific emotional meaningfulness that predesignates the system general perspective. Actually, there are many other nuances as well.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
For instance, the word \u201cklesa\u201d was in different parts of the text translated by two different words. In some cases it is rendered as \u201cimpurity\u201d, in others it is \u201caffect\u201d. As a result, a person who does not have a Sanskrit dictionary at hand shall not understand that both cases are about one and the same object. Hence confusion in practice appears.<\/div>\n
Some words are not clear. For instance, \u201cvikalpa\u201d \u2013 \u201cmental constructing\u201d. But who knows what this \u201cmental constructing\u201d actually means. I\u2019m sure the interpreters were perfectly aware of the meaning they were attributing to this word combination. But we are not them\u2026<\/div>\n
\u201cAbhyasa\u201d has been translated as \u201cthe practice\u201d, though basically it could have been \u201cexercise\u201d, a more traditional variant.<\/div>\n
\u201cVairagya\u201d is \u201cdispassionateness\u201d. Theoretically it is correct, but the word \u201cpassion\u201d has both Christian and emotional valence in it. While for a man of our day passions are just very strong emotions. But the original definition given by Patanjali tells us the term \u201cvairagya\u201d implies a different<\/a> concept. Patanjali defines it as \u201cdisengagement, non-attachment of sense organs to the objects,\u201d While in case we consider \u201cpassion\u201d in the Christian paradigm, the meaning shall be different. The translation encourages every person to fantasize in their personal way on the ground of their initial cultural paradigm. And this is not reasonable.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The word \u201cprasadanam\u201d in the phrase \u201cchitta prasadanam\u201d is translated as \u201cpurification\u201d. And it distorts one\u2019s concept of the practice because it was not purification and cleaning that Patanjali actually meant.<\/b> The details can be found here<\/a> but I shall once again emphasize that \u201cprasadanam\u201d is not \u201cpurifying\u201d but \u201ccollecting the self\u201d. It may have no difference when looking at the text from the point of philosophy. But when we try to use it as a groundwork for the practice, collecting oneself and purifying appear to be totally different ideas to be based on.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cSamadhi\u201d has been translated by the authors as \u201cconcentration\u201d. Maybe in this case they were affected by Ballantyne\u2019s interpretation \u2013 he also has \u201cconcentration\u201d there \u2013 or maybe it happened because of some other reasons. But samadhi is not concentration.<\/b> Samadhi is the state that was triply defined in Yoga Sutras. And from these definitions it is clear that samadhi is a cognitive experience. As for \u201cconcentration\u201d, it has its own Sanskrit analogues, like, for instance, \u201cekagrata\u201d that Yoga Sutras also mention.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The translation of the word \u201ctapas\u201d as \u201casceticism\u201d it totally ineligible. When we speak about asceticism, they are firm Christian associations that immediately occur. But yoga is not Christianity, it is not a religion in general. Tapas stems from the root-word \u201ctap\u201d that has been preserved in the word \u201ctepid\u201d. In fact, tapas is a means of cumulating inner energy, power.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cAsmita\u201d has been translated as \u201cegoism\u201d. But the definition<\/a> given in the second section proves it to differ from what a European thinks egoism to be.<\/div>\n
\u201cRaga\u201d is rendered as \u201caffinity\u201d [attraction], though we remember the root \u201cra\u00f1j\u201d to mean \u201cdye, color\u201d, so in this case \u201craga\u201d rather means \u201ccolouring\u201d. For more details about the difference see here<\/a> and here<\/a>.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
And then comes \u201cdhyana\u201d \u2013 the \u201cyogic contemplation\u201d. This line might have stolen hours of those practitioners who have decided that dhyana is contemplation. Another absurd translation variant \u2013 \u201cdhyana is a prayer\u201d \u2013 can sometimes also be found. And yoga teachers \u201cinspired\u201d by this interpretation say \u201cclose your eyes, imagine some object \u2013 this is dhyana\u201d. Yet this is not dhyana but vritti-nidra. That is, sitting and day-dreaming \u2013 and not practicing. While dhyana is a specific cognitive process that was also defined in Patanjali\u2019s Yoga Sutras.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The word \u201ckarma\u201d has been left untranslated. I think it was not a good idea. A modern European idea of the Hindu \u201cconcept\u201d of karma was elaborated by Elena Blavatskaya. She was the first to have written that \u201ckarma is the law of cause-and-effect relationship\u201d, \u201ckarma is the law of the Universe\u201d, etc. While in Sanskrit \u201ckarma\u201d is a nominative case of \u201ckarman\u201d \u2013 \u201caction\u201d. In the framework of European tradition \u201ckarma\u201d has been subjected to ontologization and substantiation as an individual \u201cstuff\u201d, maybe due to the reason that the word \u201ckarma\u201d is traditionally left without translation. Whatever the reason, in the text of Yoga Sutras the word \u201ckarma\u201d always means \u201caction\u201d, and it could have been translated. \u201cKarmaphala\u201d are the \u201cfruits of the action\u201d, not the fruits of some transcendental karma. \u201cKarmasaya\u201d means \u201cresidues from the actions\u201d.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cPunya\u201d \u2013 a very important term that means something a person acquires by doing a \u201cright\u201d action. In the framework of Buddhist translation tradition \u201cpunya\u201d is sometimes rendered as \u201cspiritual credit\u201d. There are texts that describe the possibility of punya passing from one person to another. I.e. punya is rather a kind of substantiated energy. While here it\u2019s been translated as \u201cvirtue\u201d. Yet the word \u201cvirtue\u201d with its moralizing connotation somewhat \u201ctenses\u201d the text and brings a Christian undertone into it. \u201cApunya\u201d is respectively translated as \u201cvice\u201d. Though the following line<\/a> makes clear that vice it is not.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cSamskara\u201d is a \u201cforming factor\u201d that is not very clear unless a detailed explanation is given. In case we wanted to say it in common language, the most faithful translation [into Russian] would be the word \u201chabit\u201d, while the most adequate psychological term is \u201cdynamic stereotype\u201d.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cVasana\u201d \u2013 \u201cunconscious impression\u201d. In fact, the meaning of vasana is very near to that of samskara. It is just that the word \u201csamskara\u201d stems from the root \u201ckr\u201d by adding the prefix \u201csam\u201d so that it turns into \u201cco-action\u201d, i.e. \u201ccompressed action\u201d. While vasana is a derivative of \u201cvas\u201d \u2013 to smell, i.e., the aroma. It\u2019s like \u201c\u2026now everything is ok, but an unpleasant aftertaste remains.\u201d So this \u201cunpleasant aftertaste\u201d is actually vasana, i.e. emotional reminiscence of some event.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The term \u201ckaivalya\u201d has been translated with the help of two different terms \u2013 \u201credemption\u201d and \u201capartness\u201d. That is already embarrassing. Besides, the word \u201credemption\u201d also bears a Christian overtone. Though original \u201ckaivalya\u201d has nothing of this sense. \u201cKevalam\u201d means \u201cto be alone\u201d, individually, and \u201ckaivalya\u201d in an abstract noun that derives from this \u201ckevalam\u201d \u2013 the \u201cdetachment\u201d, but without the negative connotation that is inevitable in the Russian version.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
While the word \u201cbhoga\u201d \u2013 \u201cpleasure, delight\u201d \u2013 has been ignored by the translators probably for some Christian reasons: they translated it as \u201cexperience\u201d as if for the purpose of avoiding the sweet word \u201cpleasure\u201d. In fact, there is a specific Sanskrit word to denote the word \u201cexperience\u201d \u2013 anubhava. While bhoga is the pleasure proper. The root \u201cbhuj\u201d has two meanings – \u201cto eat\u201d and \u201cto enjoy\u201d (depending on the voice). In this case \u201cto eat\u201d does not seem to be appropriate, so it is still the \u201cpleasure\u201d that the text goes about. Though Vyasa\u2019s interpretation of the word \u201cbhoga\u201d already bears the signs of early Tantra presence.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u201cNiyama\u201d is \u201cadherence\u201d, as our translators have written, \u201cto religious principles\u201d. But why \u201creligious\u201d? Why bringing a religious<\/b> component into yoga when yoga is not a religion? Niyama derives from the root \u201cyam\u201d \u2013 \u201cto control\u201d \u2013 by adding there the prefix \u201cni\u201d that in this case just intensifies the meaning. That is, \u201cyama\u201d is \u201ccontrol\u201d, while \u201cniyama\u201d is an \u201ceven more rigorous control.\u201d<\/div>\n
If we bring back all these words and do what I call the \u201crestored translation\u201d, the emerging text in general shall be rather usable.<\/div>\n
But first and foremost, the disapprobation of Ostrovskaya and Rudoi translation can be justified by their having translated yoga chitta vritti nirodha as \u201cyoga is cessation of the mind activity\u201d. Of course the translators are very wise and intelligent people, they are scholars, and they never implied the meaning that occurs to common people who read this line. Moreover, there is a dedicated commentary on this line that reads ca.as follows: \u201cthe term \u201cvritti\u201d means actual states of the empirical mind which contents is formed by specific pratyayas.\u201d Probably the authors do understand the things they write. But I guess they are the only ones who do. But for, maybe, oriental scholars of the same academic tradition. Yet most people understand this sutra literally as \u201cyoga is cessation of the mind activity\u201d. And there it goes. They say: \u201cBut why, yoga IS the cessation of the mind activity\u201d, or \u201cIf I\u2019m just sitting there and thinking about nothing \u2013 this is yoga\u201d (true and actual quoting of some \u201cpractitioners\u201d). Some followers thus decide that the practice of yoga implies \u201ctemporal inhibition of the thinking process\u201d. Others suggest \u201ckilling dead\u201d with the help of hatha workout in order to attain a state when neither thoughts nor ideas occur. And these are just small potatoes. Because everyone who wanted to be slow on the draw has finally got the permission for this. Yet careful study of the original text shows that Patanjali did not mean intellectual braindeadness to be the objective of Yoga. It is on the contrary \u2013 and it is what the whole text is about. The state of yoga is a very active state of mind. But unfortunately the translation telling about cessation of mind activity has stolen the show.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
(TO BE CONTINUED)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A long time ago when I was just starting my study of yoga \u2013 guess it was 1986 or 1987 \u2013 one of my groupmates came with a clandestine reprint of a brochure made with the help of factory printing office. Though, it was not even a brochure: just several unbound sheets bearing the title… Continue reading On Yoga Sutras\u2019 Five Translations<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[474,200],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35402","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-history-of-yoga-en","category-yoga-sutra-en","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35402","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35402"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35402\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35402"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35402"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.in.yoga\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35402"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}