August 2025 Newsletter from Srivatsa Ramaswami-- Sentencingg the Sutras

[Srivatsa Ramaswami]

August 2025 Newsletter from Srivatsa Ramaswami—Sentencing the Sutras

I have been writing about my book "Samkhya Karika" published by Inner Traditions in USA. Originally priced at $25, it will be made available in India from mid-August and can be got from Amazon India and other book sellers. The book as against the list price of $ 25 (about Rs 2000+) is made available in India at Rs 725 . Thus, if you buy in India you save about Rs 1300. Of course, some may say that if you do not buy it, you save another Rs 725 or so. But then especially if you are a serious yoga practitioner, you may miss something that could be quite useful, or even essential. Sri Krishnamacharya took considerable pains to teach this text as he considered Samkhyakarika along with yoga sutras as essential texts to be studied in depth by involved yogis and yoga teachers for a clear understanding and dissemination of yoga sastra. And by itself Samkhya is an outstanding and very thought-provoking original philosophy.

Here is amazon India link for the book

https://www.amazon.in/Samkhya-Karika-Practitioners-Overcoming-Suffering/dp/B0D9TMMMG2/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&dib_tag=se&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.VwzumFv4vjU62N_S1HUx55_xZAXmYOF_9mkyyKeyt0c_ZU6n-ZKlVeeYorWKnIs4NH-k9yObznxRxJJ-FhHvCdmyWkpLrDWU2HmKNkX0bJ8.X2VRFq3NfLh5pNV0fsVWfH1nnuHYuq-3WsX38fKjDqE&qid=1753620182&sr=8-1

Some of my long-time student teachers and longtime serious yoga practitioners may have already got the book and read it. If so, I would request them to consider writing a compact review of the contents of the book and post it in Amazon and also in their Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn pages. Even as I am interested in increasing the support for this book, I am also keen that those who follow the Krishnamacharya system must consider strengthening the base with textual studies as he would have liked.

The trio of Samkhya Yoga and Vedanta form the important nivritti sastras or philosophies leading to eternal freedom. All the three consider that in samsara or never-ending repeated cycles of birth and death there is a preponderance of pain and sorrow. The release from this chronic condition they call as kaivalya, moksha or eternal freedom.

Samkhya has Samkhya karika of Iswarakrishna as the best text. It lays out succinctly the nature of the immortal Self or purusha, the real "I". Built on this framework is Yoga philosophy. The best text on this darshana is the yogasutras of Patanjali. It shows the way to develop the mental discipline to realize directly the nature of one's own Self leading to eternal satisfaction. The third philosophy, the vedanta identifies the source of the objective universe and the subjective.  individual as essentially one and the same., the same majestic consciousness

Many consider the best text for Vedanta is the Mandukya upanishad as enunciated by Manduka Maharshi. This explains brilliantly that the nature of Brahman and of the individual are essentially one and the same .. It is the same ageless immutable consciousness represented by pranava or "OM"mantra.

Sri Krishnmacharya took pains to teach all these texts to his long standing students

I have also been writing about a 15 day 100 hr Vinyasakrama program organized by Yogasoul in Salt Lake City in Utah USA from Sep 22, 2025. I hope this program can take place and enough participants register 

https://www.yogasoul.org/yoga-teacher-training/srivatsa-ramaswami

100-Hour Vinyasa Krama Intensive with Srivatsa Ramaswami | YogaSoul

Deepen Your Practice. Study in a Living Lineage. Transform Your Understanding of Yoga. Join YogaSoul for a rare opportunity to learn directly from Srivatsa Ramaswami, one of the most respected living students of Sri T. Krishnamacharya. Our special 100-hour Vinyasa Krama training bridges traditional knowledge with modern practice, offering a once-in-a-lifetime chance to study authentic yoga in ...

www.yogasoul.org

definition of yoga is the well-known quote " citta vritti nirodha". What is the favorable benefit ? It is in the next sutra "tadaa drashtuH svarupe avasthanam". Here Patanjali uses the word Drashta to indicate the real Self. Drashtru is the seer or a more comprehensive term ' the experiencer" By using the term drashtru (it becomes drashta in the nominative case and drashtuH in the possessive case) Patanjali teaches that the eyes (and the senses) do not see (nor the senses feel the impulses). It is not even the citta the brain that sees or experiences. The eyes do not see, the brain does not see but it is the Self called drashtru that sees or experiences. As per Samkhya the senses are gates through which the appropriate signals (like light particles are let through by the eyes but not the sound waves which pass through the ear gates), The buddhi/citta processes the information, colors it with ahamkaric emotions and presents to drashtru. What is the resultant benefit for the Self or drashtru itself? 

Tada—then or at that time

DrashtuH-- of the seer

Svarupe-- in its true form/nature

avastanam--establishment.

Usually the sutra is translated as "The seer is established in its true form". But the sutra does not give the verb. So what is the verb to be added to make the sentence complete? Do sutras omit verbs generally?

Yes, Sanskrit sūtras (short, aphoristic rules) often omit verbs explicitly. Theirs is a common feature of sūtra format, where the brevity and conciseness are valued over explicit verb usage. The intended verb is often implied or understood from the context, the case endings of other words, or the general structure of the sūtra. 

If Patanjali were to teach a class rather than writing the book in the sutra format, he would have certainly made a complete sentence of the first sutra which is atha yoga anusasanam.  In the sutra both the subject and the predicate are omitted retaining only the object

The sentence would possibly be 

Atha (aham pravakshyami) anusasanam yogaM

Now (I will explain) authentic/scriptural yoga. Yoga becomes yogam in the accusative case.

It may be noted that the first sutra could conceivably be considered the title of the book. 

ANUSHASANA YOGA  or "AUTHENTIC YOGA"

By PATANJALI

Let us get to the next sutra which actually defines yoga.

Yogaascittavritti nirodhaH

It would then be as a sentence as follows

Yogah (asti) citta vritti nirodhaH 

or the translation would be

yoga (is) cittavritti nirodha

Let us digress a bit to look at the meaning of the words vritti and citta

The most well-known definition of yoga, as we have seen, is "citta vritti nirodha" as told by Patanjali. This is most often translated like "Yoga is the stopping of the fluctuation of the mind". Here the sanskrit word vritti is generally translated as fluctuation. While this translation is very appealing it may not correctly represent the word vritti. Vritti means 'activity' like in pravritti nivritti krishivritti uncavritti etc. The translation of vritti as fluctuation is incorrect or at best conveys a very limited sense. In fact, Patanjali himself explains the citta vrittis in five groups. Firstly, it is Pramana or knowing the truth. Is knowing the truth a fluctuation of the mind? The second is viparyaya or incorrect understanding, on a matter in which the subject is sure that he has understood it correctly. Third is vikalpa or imagination. Will stopping imagination ( a fluctuation?) lead to kaivalya? The fourth is nidra or sleep. I cannot imagine sleep to be a fluctuation of the mind. And smriti or remembering something one has not forgotten. It is not a fluctuation of the mind. I think yogis must revisit the popular modern view of vritti, especially in a sutra that defines yoga.yoga.

Let us get to the third sutra

Tada drashtuH svarupe avasthanam

This sutra states the state of the drashta/purusha the real Self in the state of Yoga, when nirodha of all cittavrittis take place. The general translation for the sutraa runs like this

"Then the seer (drashta) abides in its true form". What does this translation indicate? Here again the predicate is missing. Was the drashta in a different state in a non-yogic condition and at the time of yoga it settles down and resides in its true form? We have to find the appropriate verb to make sense of this sutra. 

Does citta vritti  or its nirodha make any change to the seer?.  If we say that due to cittavritti nirodha the purusha or the seer settles in its true form, the question is whether the drashta was in a different state before citta vritti norodha takes place in a yogi, to indicate a consequent change in the nature of the seer. The default translation of this sutra that "the seer then settles in its true form" would indicate a change in the seer a change from unsettled state to a yogic state of avasthana.. Its (seer) previous state, the nonyoga state is different from the yogic state. Is it so? No. The drashta never changes. It is aparinami or immutable says Patanjali later on. 

So what is the verb? Here we should understand that in the state of yoga or cittavritti nirodha, the yogi or his/citta realizes the seer in its true nature (svarupa)

.

So the sentencing of the sutra should be

Tada (jnatam) drashtuH svarupe avasthanam 

It would mean that the nature of the drashta , (always) established in its true state, is realized. So cittavritti nirodha brings about a direct realization of the nature of the drashta or the Self and not any change in the nature of the drashta or Self itself . The drashta does not change but in a state of yoga the yogi realizes the true nature of the immutable Self.

To understand this better, Patanjali explains the state of affairs in the non yogic state vis a vis the individual (non yogi) and the drashta.

The sutra is 

Vritti sarupyam itaratra.

Here the sutra is generally translated as

When not in a state of yoga the seer identifies with modifications of the mind

The drashta is a mere observer and does not change or identify with anything that goes on as cittavritti. Patanjali calls it as aparinami a non changing entity.

Here both the subject and the predicate are missing

So if we sentence the sutra it could be

Itratra, (drashta) vritti sarupyam (iva bhavati)

The translation of the bare sutra generally runs as follows as mentioned

When not in a state of yoga the seer identifies with the fluctuations of the mind

The drashta is a mere observer and does not change or identify with anything that goes on as cittavritti. Patanjali calls it as aparinami a non changing or an immutable entity

So the sutra would become in a sentence

(drashtuH) Vritti sarupyam (jayate) itaratra

  

At other times (itaratra), false image (sarupa)  of  the seer(drashtuH)) is created/arises in the mind/citta  (vritti)  

At other  times (non- vritti nirodha state) a false image (sarupya) of the drashta or Self exists as a cittavritti

Here Patanjali points out that when the real nature (svarupa) of the drashta or Self is not realized as in a yogic state, there is a false understanding (sarupa, saarupya) of the nature of the self in the mind or citta as a vritti . Even though there is no change ever in the nature of the drashta or Self a false impression persists in the mind. What is the false impression? It is the default feeling that the active citta or the brain is the self and is the seat of consciousness. 

Here we have to come to terms with two terms used by Patanjali with respect to the Self. They are svarupa (sva+rupa) and sarupa (sa+rupa) which changes to sarupya or a state of saarupa.  sva means one's own and so svarupa is the real nature here of the Self. But the term sarupa ( and sarupya) is generally translated as an image of the real. sa means equal or similar. But in these texts sarupa  or sarupya would indicate a state of understanding which is different from real state of the entity under consideration. Sarupya would mean then a conviction-- a wrong one-- which is different from the truth. What is the (wrong) conviction or viparyaya or avidya here? It is that the individual, the prakritic individual its citta or brain, has consciousness. But according to the yogis, only the real Self is pure consciousness and is realized only in a state of yoga. The prakrtic body made of three gunas, five bhutas and its tanmatras or elements 13 instruments ( 5 karma indriyas 5 jnana indriyas, manas ahamkara and buddhi) does not have consciousness.

The term sarupa chosen by Patanjali is significant. The purpose is not to show that the vritti sarupya is a replica of the Self as some scholars aver, but to show that something else is mistaken as the real Self. In Mahabharata there is an episode wherein one was mistaken to be another of similar build and viewed from a distance in dim light. Let us consider two identical twins X and Y . If I go and talk to Y thinking it is X then this mistake is sarupya. The purpose of using the word is not to point out the similarity between the two twins but to point out the mistaking Y to be X. This is a common occurrence in our daily lives in subtler ways. Another example would be a common occurrence. When I am awake, my mind, my buddhi the thinking faculty identifies the 86-year-old individual as the Self. But during the dream every night almost without fail the same Buddhi considers the 18 year old or any other dream self in a dream episode as Ramaswami.  The dream self is a sarupya of the sleeping Ramaswami. They do not look alike but erroneously considered to be the same entity by the mind .  And this happens not once but many times during the lifetime" night in and night out". This is a classic case of sarupya.  

Here the choice of words by the ancient darsanas to explain the real drashta and the mind or intellect which masquerades as the real Self is significant. The word cit is consciousness which is another term used by the rishis to indicate the real self, the drashtR. The term used for the brain/mind/intellect is citta. The word citta would when opened up ( vigraha) will be (cit iva bhavayati iti cittam) That which masquerades as cit or real consciousness is citta. This is the main teaching of yoga and other nivritti sastras as samkhya and vedanta as well. The real Self is pure unvarying consciousness. But because of the lack of sharpness of the mind or inability to bring the mind to a state of samadhi, the impression that the citta has consciousness and is the Self, persists. Yogis in a state of samadhi are able to see the clear distinction (viveks khyati), the unmistakable broad daylight between the Self which is pure consciousness and the citta or the mind which has no consciousness but appears to have consciousness for the non-yogic undiscriminating (aviveka) mind

 Ok let us take a break