Samkhya-Yoga-Kundalini
Out of all the eight limbs, Pratyahara is one of the most perplexing. The sutra that defines it is cryptic and to understand it requires additional context, which is missing from most translations and commentaries. A comparison of different versions of the Yoga Sutras and other Hindu texts reveals diversity of opinion about what constitutes Pratyahara, implying that, even in ancient times, it was a subject of debate. The Katha Upanishad provides guidance in the metaphor of a chariot:
“Know the Self to be the master of the chariot and the body to be the chariot. Know the intellect to be the charioteer and the mind to be the reins. The senses they speak of as the horses; the objects within their view to be the way. When the Self is yoked with the mind and the senses, the wise call it the enjoyer. But whoso is devoid of discrimination and is possessed of a mind ever uncollected - his senses are uncontrollable like the vicious horses of a driver. But whoso is discriminative and possessed of a mind ever collected – his senses are like the good horses of a driver.”
The Yoga Sutras contains both a definition of Pratyahara (Sutra 2.54) and a description of the expected result (2.55). This provides a way for yogis to test their understanding and the effectiveness of their practice. The careful reader should not rely on the English translation alone but should read the transliteration of the Sanskrit text. This allows the reader to see exactly where various translators differ and often provides important insights.
Sva-viṣaya-asamprayoge cittasya sva-rūpa-anukāra iva-indriyāṇāṁ pratyāhāraḥ
Tataḥ paramā vaśyata-indriyāṇām
“(2.54) Pratyahara, or abstraction is, as it were, the imitation by the senses of the mind by withdrawing themselves from their objects. (2.55) Then follows the greatest mastery of the senses.”
“(2.54) Sense withdrawal is the imitation as it were of the own-form of consciousness [on the part of] the sense organs by disuniting themselves from their objects. (2.55) Thence [results] the supreme obedience of the sense organs.”
“(2.54) When separated from their corresponding objects, the organs follow, as it were, the nature of the mind, that is called Pratyahara. (2.55) That brings supreme control of the organs.”
Vyasa’s commentary is quoted by both Feuerstein and Swami Hariharananda Aranya.
“As when the queen bee flies up and the bees swarm after her, and when she settles down, they also settle, so the senses are restricted when consciousness is restricted.”
The word indriya is usually translated as “the senses” and pratyahara is usually considered to apply exclusively to the senses. Unfortunately, “the senses” doesn’t convey the whole meaning. Indriya is a word from Samkhya philosophy that translates to “instrument”, as in “the instruments of the Purusa”. The indriyas consist not only of the senses, but also include a second category known as the instruments of action.
With this expanded definition of indriyas, we understand that pratyahara is not concerned exclusively with the senses and cognition, but applies to the instruments of action as well.
The translators mostly agree on these two phrases. Asamprayoge means “not connected with” and sva-viṣaya is “their objects”. The subject is the indriyas and “iva” is unanimously translated “as it were”. But in spite of the unanimous agreement of the translators, “as it were” is problematic. It doesn’t mean anything to a modern reader.
A quick check of Apte’s Sanskrit-English dictionary reveals that the primary meaning of iva is “like”, or “as if”. Using this translation, the sutra starts to make more sense, and the meaning is quite different from the example translations. The complete thought is, “as if the indriyas were disconnected from their objects”. It’s a simile or comparison, not an action. This goes against the widely accepted meaning of pratyahara as an act of somehow withdrawing the senses from their objects.
The problematic words in this phrase are sva-rupa. The word citta is well understood as referring to consciousness or the mind; cittasya is “of the mind” or “of consciousness”. Anukara means to imitate or resemble. So we have, the indriyas “imitate or resemble the sva-rupa of the mind”. What is the sva-rupa of the mind?
Swami Hariharananda Aranya translates the phrase as, the indriyas “follow (imitate or resemble) the nature of the mind”, with sva-rupa being “the nature of”. This is a difficult concept for a modern reader to grasp. What does it mean to imitate or resemble the nature of the mind? We get a hint from Katha and the commentary of Vyasa: when the mind is controlled, the senses (indriyas) are also controlled.
This understanding is sufficient for the purpose of this article Full understanding of sva-rupa will bring greater clarity. This will be covered in a separate article.
When the indriyas resemble the nature of the mind, as if separated from their objects, that is Pratyahara. From that, supreme control of the indriyas.
This translation, while probably correct, is too literal. “As if separated from their objects” must be understood as a state of quiescence or being under control, as if the horses have been unhitched from the chariot and placed in their stalls. Recall from Katha that the horses can be either under control or out of control, depending on the individual’s state of mind. In other words, the indriyas always resemble the nature of the mind, whether under control or not. But when the mind is controlled, and as a result, the indriyas also are controlled, that is Pratyahara.
One of the more enlightening ideas in the foregoing discussion is the expanded definition of indriyas. This helps us to understand what it is that we want to control. It’s not only the physical indriyas but also the appetites associated with them. Where shall we go, what shall we do, what shall we eat, what shall we wear? Many people crave intoxicants, or sexual gratification, entertainment, social media, etc. Are these not the horses that can get out of control?
There are two main points of view regarding how to bring the horses to heel.
If the translation proposed here is correct, then Pratyahara is unlike the other seven limbs in the sense that the sutra doesn’t describe a practice, it describes a state of being. The perceived need to translate Sutra 2.54 as a practice may have been a factor in the mistaken translations of the past.
How are we to practice the mental discipline that leads to Pratyahara? In the absence of guidance from the Yoga Sutras, we must turn to other sources. Several methods can be found in the Upanishads, but one in particular seems well suited to modern yoga practices. It is similar to what psychologists call “progressive relaxation” and “interoception”, but with a couple of extra steps. This type of practice is useful, especially when the extra steps are included. But the yogi must also develop the power of discrimination spoken of in Katha in order to achieve the “ever collected” mind, which in turn results in control of the indriyas. The Yoga Sutras does provide guidance in this regard.
Understanding the definition of pratyahara as it is explained in this article is a first step. Separate articles will further discuss practice, the nature of the mind, and the power of discrimination.