Below is the third section of the yoga sutras. It gets quite… “out there”. Things like special powers and abilities come up. Enjoy!
3.1 Concentration is the binding of consciousness to a single spot. Seems like a good way of putting it. When you focus your consciousness on one single thing, you are concentrating. Concentration is the 6th member of yoga.
3.2 The one-directionality of the presented-ideas with regard to that object of concentration is meditative-absorption. If you continuously concentrate on an object, you will be meditating on that object. Meditation-absorption is the 7th member of yoga.
3.3 That consciousness, when shining forth as the object only as if empty of its essence, is enstasy. So, you were concentrating on an object, and this continuous stream of concentration lead to a state of meditative-absorption. This meditative-absorption is when nothing but the essence of the object is meditated on (shining forth), here there are no distractions and no other things present, no presented-ideas, no subliminal-activators, no depth memory. Just the pure essence of the object. This results in enstasy. This is the 8th member of yoga.
3.4 The three practised together on the same object are constraint. Ok, so members 6,7,8 of yoga, concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy together are called constraint. Fair enough.
3.5 Through mastery of that practice of constraint there ensues the flashing-forth of transcendental-insight.So when one masters, through practice, constraint, one will be able to achieve transcendental-insight. So, if I suppose that it is possible to concentrate, meditate so purely on something, that I become lost and fixed on purely the essence of it, surely this would bring with it a ‘new truth’. Realizing the true essence/nature of something could surely be called transcendental-insight. It is insight, yes, and your views and knowledge and consciousness are transcended, so this is fairly easy to accept. I say this because, the true nature and essence of something is nothing but what it is. The ‘book’ next to me is categorized as a ‘book’ because I have previous knowledge of what a book is (‘bookness’) and the thing next to me fits in that category. But if there was no idea or knowledge of what a book was, it would still exist. It would just ‘be’. That is its true nature. Labeling and categorizing something gives you illusory knowledge of something. In fact, what that process and way of thinking does is limit what the thing you are labeling/categorizing. It tells you what it isn’t. But none of these things really speak of the true nature of the thing you are trying to know. It doesn’t bring you any closer to knowing ‘it’. Rather, this way of thinking simply allows you to categorize it as it is useful to you (or your image of you) and your ego.
When I think of being lost on something, and realizing its true essence, I think of the thing we did as kids where we repeat as fast as possible “relish”, over and over. You do this so many times that you reach a point where the word ‘relish’ loses its meaning. I remember this happening to me multiple times with different things, where the word was simply meaningless. It was a weird phenomenon. The word was empty. There were no presented-ideas associated with it, and thus no subliminal-activators. But this was just a word, and a word is just a symbol, or a presented-idea for a “real” “thing” that can be experienced. The relish itself, would be the real thing. So, yes, I can imagine it being possible to focus so much on something that all thoughts, impressions and ideas of it melt away, and all you are left with is just the pure essence of the object. The true nature of it. No words could possibly describe it, as those words are simply not the true essence of the object.
3.6 Its progression is gradual. Fair enough, I don’t expect to be a yoga meditative master over night. Most things in life are gradual.
3.7 In relation to the previous five techniques of yoga the three components of constraint are inner members. Ok, so here Patanjali is just trying to categorize the three components of constraint (concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy) as something called ‘inner members’. I am going to suppose that they are labelled as inner members as they arise from within, specifically within your own consciousness. Maybe I am wrong. Anyway, they are labelled as inner members in relation to the first 5 members of yoga. I think that “inner” might be associated with something like… a more ‘truer’ self. The first five members of yoga were more physical (posture, breathing, sense organs, etc); they related to the body. We generally think of the body as the self, and the rest is external. I think this goes a bit further and puts the body as external, and the functions of the mind (concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy) as the truer self.
3.8 Yet they are outer members in relation to the seedless enstasy. So, despite the fact that the final three members of yoga (concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy) are labelled as ‘inner members’ in relation to the first five members of yoga, these final three ‘inner members’ are considered ‘outer members’ when compared to ‘seedless enstasy’. So, if I was right above, then this would mean that even those three mental processes (concentration, meditative-absorption, and enstasy) aren’t really the ‘true self’, even they can be seen as external from oneself, in relation to seedless enstasy. Let’s find out what that means!
3.9 When there is subjugation of the subliminal-activators of emergence and the manifestation of the subliminal-activators of restriction – this is the restriction transformation which is connected with consciousness in its moment of restriction. Ok, this one is very abstract. Let’s start by thinking about our thoughts. If you wanted to think about something, a red elephant, you would have to put away other thoughts (restrict those subliminal-activators) and then you would have to control your thoughts to think of a red elephant (subjugate your subliminal-activators related to the red elephant). So in this ‘moment of restriction’ your consciousness is connected to both the control (subjugation) to produce some thoughts (subliminal-activators), while trying to restrict others. It is difficult to do. If I said to you, think of anything BUT a red elephant, well, you might have a hard time. In constantly thinking “don’t think of a red elephant” you ARE thinking of a red elephant. It is quite difficult. I think we all have had at some point something stuck in our mind that we can’t shake, and if we can get our mind off of it, it just comes back. Why is that? Why is it so hard to control ones own mind? Is it not yours? I can control my arm from going up or down. I don’t have to constantly pull my arm down because it is always spontaneously going up. So why is it so hard for the mind? Well, maybe it is practice, maybe we spend so little time working and focusing on our consciousness. I don’t know, but yeah, I think that this sutra is explaining that there are these two aspects to consciousness – forming concentration on one thought, and then restricting others.
3.10 The calm flow of this consciousness is effected through subliminal-activators. So, I take this as the ability to freely control ones own thoughts/consciousness (in the sense as spoken about above in 3.9) lies in the effects of subliminal-activators. Subliminal-activators have big effects on our states of consciousness and our ability to control these states.
Remember: subliminal-activators are those ‘things’ that produce our ‘presented-ideas’ of things. When I say dog, instantly you know what I mean. Those ‘things’ that you associate with dog, whatever they may be, are your presented-ideas. When I say clown, instantly something comes to mind. Again, those things are your presented-ideas. But presented-ideas don’t just come from nowhere, they have a cause, and they are born from something. That something, are your subliminal-activators. They exist in your depth-memory, and exist due to various thoughts, experiences, etc, that you have lived through (in this life and in others).
So, yeah, I can subscribe to this.
3.11 The dwindling of all-objectness and the uprising of the one-pointedness is the enstasy transformation of consciousness. This sutra seems to state that entasy transformation of consciousness, which I take to mean that state of consciousness one gets from being in complete meditative-absorption, arises when “all-objectness” fades away to nothing, and there is an up-rising to the point where there is nothing but “one-pointedness”. One-pointedness means to me complete focus. There is nothing in your mind but this one thing. All-objectness, to me, seems to be just a complete lack of concentration and letting everything in through your senses. It means completely living in your sensory perceptions.
A small example of this is when someone is so focused on something that they forget x, or can’t even hear when someone else is talking to them, etc etc.
3.12 Then again, when the quiescent and the uprisen presented ideas are similar, this is the one-pointedness transformation of consciousness. So in the last few sutras we were looking at just concentrating on something until you were lost in it. Then we started talking about mastery over your thinking process. We talked about an increase in your one-pointedness, and a decrease in your all-objectness. This involves controlling the processes of thought. Here, this sutra states that when the same one-pointedness thought comes and goes, but is not interrupted by anything else, this is also the one-pointedness transformation of consciousness.
I am not sure if there is anything else to interpret. I think this is just something else that can happen, and can be observed (with practice).
3.13 By this are also explained the transformation of form, time-variation and condition with regard to the elements and sense-organs. This sutra states that the last few sutras can explain the transformation (change) of form, of time and of condition (characteristics?), and how they relate to our sense-organs and the elements (nature, matter, physical, etc).
3.14 The form-bearer [ie. The substance] is that which conforms to the quiescent, uprisen or indeterminable form. There is a substance, a ‘something’, that forms stuff. This ‘something’ is what gives things their ‘thingness’. What makes an atom an atom, what makes an electron an electron, what makes a quark a quark, a Higgs-boson a Higgs-boson, what makes anything anything? This substance, whatever we want to call it, results in things changing (transforming), from past (quiescent), present (uprisen) and future potential forms (indeterminable). Perhaps this is the true nature and essence of things.
3.15 The differentiation in the sequence is the reason for the differentiation in the transformations. This seems acceptable. The ability to differentiate how this substance changes, the sequence it changes, allows one to see that there are transformations. If I sit and watch a piece of ice sitting on my stove (with the heat on) and I watch it first melt, then the water evaporate away, this ability to differentiate in the sequence lets me differentiate between the transformations. If the changes took place immediately, in an instant, I could never know of the transformation.
3.16 Through constraint on the three forms of transformation comes about knowledge of past and the future. So when concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy, all related to the true nature, is subjected to the three forms of transformation listed in 3.14 (past, present and future), we gain knowledge of past and future. When you are presented and become aware of the true nature of transformation, you will come to see those transformations, and thus know that which is uprisen’s (present) past and future. This makes sense to me.
3.17 There is a natural confusion of presented-ideas, object and word on account of an erroneous superimposition of one another. Through constraint upon the distinction of these confused elements knowledge of the sound of all beings is acquired. Good point made here. Well, they all are, actually! So pick anything: table. There is a difference between the word ‘table’, which is nothing but a symbol for something that truly exists, the table itself (the one I am looking at now in my backyard), and the thoughts that come up in my mind (presented-ideas) when I think of or hear the word ‘table’. They are not the same things at all, and though this is obvious now when it is thought about, often times we confuse symbols for actual things, as well as our ideas of them. I often find this in ‘paradoxes’ and rational lines of thinking in philosophical debates. The attachment to the symbols, the words, can lead to a silly conclusion. What one should really focus on is what the actual thing is. Anyway, all this sutra is saying is that there are differences between these three entities, and being aware of that can lead you away from confusion.
3.18 Through direct-perception of subliminal-activators the yogin gains knowledge of his previous birth(s). Now, previous birth(s) may or may not mean past lives. It probably does, as subliminal-activators exist in the depth memory, and the depth memory is explained to exist along your true, eternal being and subject to karma. So, subliminal-activators are the reasons why we have presented-ideas. It is what produces them. These come from somewhere, and from some time previous to now. This could be from yesterday, from memories and associations made as a child, related to your mother as Freud would say, or possibly to past lives.
3.19 Through direct perception of another’s presented-idea, knowledge of another’s consciousness is obtained. The first time I read this sutra I felt it was quite powerful. I find that this should be true. If I know what you think about when it comes to anything, the exact things that come to mind for a given object (or whatever), then i will gain knowledge of your consciousness. I would even go further and say that if you had direct perception of anothers’ subliminal-activators, then you would know the true nature and formation of that persons consciousness.
3.20 But this knowledge does not have as its object that presented-idea together with the respective support [ie. Object], because of its being absent from the other’s consciousness. So this knowledge of the presented-ideas has only the presented-ideas as the object of focus/consciousness/knowledge. That is because the object does not exist in the persons consciousness, rather, just the presented-ideas of said object that may or may not be being perceived. I think.
3.21 Through constraint on the form of the body, upon the suspension of the capacity to be perceived, that is to say, upon the disruption of the light travelling from that body to the eye, there follows invisibility. Here we get into the ‘super powers’. To be honest, I don’t discard any of these claims. I simply have no recollection or present knowledge of these things. But here goes:
So, if you have constraint on the physical body, one can prevent their body from being seen by others. Invisibility!
3.22 Karman is of two kinds: acute or deferred. Through constraint thereon, or from omens, the yogin acquires knowledge of death. There are two types of karma, the kind that comes quickly, and the kind that comes later on. If you had complete knowledge of these both, you will gain knowledge of when you will die.
3.23 Through constraint on friendliness et cetera, he acquires powers. I think this is basic to life. I don’t think powers here means the ability to see through walls or shoot lazers from your fingers. I think it means that when you truly focus on good qualities, such as friendliness, compassion, empathy, etc, you become transformed, you become better. You can look at these as powers for sure, and why shouldn’t we? If I was perfectly friendly and compassionate, and expressed that to everyone around me, how could I not improve their lives, even if it was in the smallest way? How is the ability to improve someones life NOT a special power?
3.24 Through constraint on powers, he acquires powers comparable to those of the elephant et cetera. Through constraint on strength (powers), that person will become super strong (like an elephant). I have no experience with this, but it is an interesting idea and is within the realm that the yoga sutras paint.
3.25 By focusing the flashing-forth of those mental activities which are sorrowless and illuminating on any object knowledge of the subtle, concealed and distant aspects of those objects is gained. This sutra seems to be related to the sutra 1.35 found here which I didn’t quite understand. I also don’t understand this sutra.
3.26 Through constraint on the sun he gains knowledge of the world. See below.
3.27 Through constraint on the moon, knowledge of the arrangement of the stars. See below.
3.28 Through constraint on the pole-star, knowledge of their movement. See below.
3.29 Through constraint on the ‘naval wheel’, knowledge of the organisation of the body. See below.
3.30 Through constraint on the ‘throat well’, the cessation of hunger and thirst. See below.
3.31 Through constraint on the ‘tortoise duct’, steadiness. See below.
3.32 Through constraint on the light in the head, vision of the perfected ones. See below.
3.33 Or through a flash-of-illumination the yogin acquires knowledge of all. See below.
3.34 Through constraint on the heart he gains understanding of the nature of consciousness. So. I am not quite sure about a lot of these. For example 3.26-3.28 with cosmological references, I am not sure if this is symbolic or literal. If it is literal, perhaps what is being explained here is that knowledge will come to you through these specific constraints. I truly believe that the mind/consciousness functions more like a computer that streams a video, like netflix, rather than a computer that physically stores the data, like a computer with a dvd or hard-drive. I think that something comes to the mind, and the brain processes it. So the idea that knowledge can come to you is not unbelievable for me. I also believe that true knowledge, truth, can be acquired simply from mind. So these sutras are plausible.
Sutras 3.29-3.33 are equivalent except instead of speaking of the cosmos and knowledge related to the cosmos, it is about the body and knowledge,control or skill is gained. Sutra 3.34 basically generalizes it and seems to pretty much say, you’ll get it all (or more importantly, consciousness) when you practice constraint on the heart. The heart is where most Eastern philosophies believe the mind to exist, rather than the brain/head.
3.35 Experience is a presented-idea which is based on the non-distinction between the absolutely unblended self and sattva. Through constraint on the self’s own-purpose which is distinct from the other-purposeiveness of nature, knowledge of the self is obtained. So, this is a big one. In fact, this is kind of almost ‘it’. There is nothing but consciousness (here described as absolutely unblended self). It is the true nature of everything. There is nothing but consciousness. It is the ‘nature’ of existence. Then we have sattva, the mind. It is not just a mind but our mind, my mind, it is your mind. It involves the idea of an ego, somewhere, and that egos mind.
So what our experience of this extended world, what when we consider reality (physical body born, grows, gets a job, makes a family, retires, dies) comes from our inability to see that there are two different things here. The ‘consciousness’, which… I am not doing it justice – as remember from a few sutras ago, consciousness is just a word, a symbol, and not be be confused with what I am actually trying to use the symbol for, which is something that I just can’t seem to get across. The best way I can think of is invoking Platos allegory of the cave, or the movie the matrix (when neo, when blind in ‘real life’ aka zion, can still ‘see’ the true nature of reality as seen here).
I am not going to say that it is a good analogy, but here goes. In the matrix, there are 3 layers to existence. There is the first layer, the matrix, which neo first exists in. Then neo wakes up and gets unplugged from the matrix, let’s call this level, zion, which is where the humans unplugged from the matrix live. These two levels represent your everyday experience of the physical phenomenological world. I have an extended 3d body, I weigh 150-155 pounds, I live in Ottawa, I have blue eyes, etc. That corresponds, in this analogy to the matrix in which neo first inhabits, and where his mind is born into slavery. This, in the movie, is where almost 100% of humans live.
The second level of existence (zion, ie. neo waking up and unplugging from the matrix) is the mind. The mind produces and constructs our 3d physical world, as well as thinks and feels and experiences. It where emotion, pain, attachment, desire and love all live. It, in one sense, could be seen as the true nature of yourself. The true you. This is where, in the movie, only a small percentage, let’s say 0.00001% of humans live.
But then there is the third level. Only neo ever attains this level. It occurs when he is blind. In the 2nd level of existence (zion) he becomes blinded. Yet he is able to then “see”. Except what he sees is no longer illusion, or computer code (1st level), it isn’t what he then thought to be true (mind/zion), it was something else. In the video, this is represented by the glowing orange energy. There he is experiencing the true nature of existence, or ‘consciousness’. He still needs a mind to experience the ‘consciousness’, but it is important to know that the two are separate, and not the same. Seeing this separation, and thus experiencing this ‘consciousness’ is to gain true knowledge of the self, and of existence. Again, I am not saying that our existence is like the matrix, rather, I am just trying to use it as an analogy to get at what I’m speaking about.
Ok so, yeah, so our concepts of experience is not knowing there these two things are different. There is this ‘consciousness’ or perhaps a better word would just be… true nature of existence.. and we have our mind. The two are different, but we don’t see that. We don’t differentiate the two. The mind is there to experience the ‘consciousness’, the true nature of existence. I know this might be confusing as I often use consciousness and mind interchangeably, but I just don’t have a word for what I’m trying to get across so instead I use ‘consciousness’ or true nature of existence.
Anyway, this sutra is stating that when constraint is placed on these things, especially on that ‘consciousness’, then our true nature, our true being and our true experience is known.
I believe this one for sure. It is not something that (I think, at least not easily) can be taught or shown, but has to be found for oneself.
3.36 Thence occur flashes-of illumination in the sensory areas of hearing, sensing, sight, taste and smell. So pretty much, after accomplishing 3.35, you are a pimp-mac-daddy and go past your previous limitations.
3.37 These are obstacles to enstasy but attainments in the waking-state. This is an interesting kind of paradox type challenge. So, what is being put forward here is that upon realizing your true nature and existence in 3.35, you will get these…let’s call them special powers. Your senses and ability to experience will be enhanced. BUT! That experience enhancement is sensory in nature, and related still to false existence, (I am sure that I shouldn’t put it that way, but I’m getting tired and lazy) to the physical realm. These too should be avoided and are distractions from your path to enstasy. So, I think even greater non-attachment is needed at this point.
3.38 Through the relaxation of the causes of attachment to one’s body and through the experience of going-forth, consciousness is capable of entering another body. Alright! So, I am not sure if this means astral projection type of thing, or basically manifesting destiny and being able to create your own universe, life, reality, etc, but it seems that this sutra is saying that if you relax and forget about the causes of attachment to your body you will be able to take your consciousness and enter into another body. Perhaps this even means another persons body, but I have no idea how that would work. This also seems like this might be like 3.37, another paradox/challenge where you might not have attachment to your body, but to the ability to move consciousness from body to body. I dunno.
3.39 Through mastery of the up-breath the yogin gains the power of non-adhesion to water, mud or thorns and the power of rising. I was really curious about this sutra, so I looked up different translations of it. Other translations switch ‘rising’ for levitation, or other words similar to it. So it seems here that through the mastery of the up-breath, and I would also assume the flow of energy through different chakra points associated with it, that one would gain this ability (to levitate and maybe fly?). Again, I can’t really comment on this.
3.40 Through mastery of the mind-breath he acquires effulgence. So again, I think these breathing types are related to chakras, and this one seems to be related to effulgence, which I definitely had to look up the definition and seems to be like radiance or giving off light.
3.41 Through constraint on the relation between ear and ether he acquires the divine ear. This seems straight forward.
3.42 Through constraint on the relation between body and ether and through the coincidence of consciousness with light objects, such as cotton, he obtains the power of traversing the ether. I don’t know. At first, because a lot of these sutras are related to new abilities and powers, I felt that this was about teleportation or something. But I don’t think that it is. I don’t know, maybe it is. The second thing that came to mind to explain ‘traversing the ether’ was simply the ability of motion. Body would be matter, and ether would be void, which is lack of matter. The ability to move along through nothingness would be motion. This one I am going to say that I am really not sure about. Though teleportation sounds like fun! Maybe it is about flying, and is just a bit different than levitation. That is probably it. That is probably where this sutra is going with light objects like cotton, as cotton doesn’t teleport, and any object can have motion, but cotton is light and so floats? I dunno.
3.43 An external, non-imaginary fluctuation of consciousness is the ‘great incorporeal’ from which comes the dwindling of the covering of the inner light. I am really unsure of this, but it seems to me that this sutra is speaking of out of body experiences (astral projection kind of stuff). Again, if this is what it is talking about this would once again be something to be non-attached to, but also something that one can attain (that paradox kind of problem again).
3.44 Through constraint on the coarse, the own-form, the subtle, the connectedness and the purposiveness of objects the yogin gains mastery over the elements. Through constraint on all the different aspects of physical being, one gains mastery over them. This would be like being able to control matter?
3.45 Thence results the manifestation of the powers, such as atomisation et cetera, perfection of the body and the indestructibility of its constituents. Ok, so this seems more like control over matter. “Atomisation” sounds like you can just manipulate and control physical matter at will. This, if possible, would surely be another non-attachment/attainment paradoxes.
3.46 Beauty, gracefulness and adamant robustness constitute the perfection of the body. Seems straight forward.
3.47 Through constraint on the process-of-perception, the own-form, I-am-ness, connectedness and purposiveness he gains master over the sense-organs. I feel like this has been stated before, or at least in some way or another. Through constraint (concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy) on the perceptions, the self, the ego, etc, you would find an enhanced and fluency of perception stemming from your sense organs.
3.48 Thence comes about fleetness as of the mind, the state lacking sense-organs and the mastery over the matrix of nature. Basically, this sutra states that you have a super quick mind, and powerful, so you don’t require sense-organs anymore and must become much like what we typically perceive as an omnipotent god, with control over nature and those things that make it up.
3.49 The yogin who has merely the vision of the distinction between the self and the sattva of consciousness gains supremacy over all states of existence and omniscience. I think this is speaking of the topic of sutra 3.35. The person who can differentiate between the mind and the ‘consciousness’ that I was trying to describe, comes the power over existence and knowledge. This is a pretty loft claim.
3.50 Through dispassion towards even this exalted vision, with the dwindling of the seeds of the defects he achieves liberation and the aloneness of the power of seeing. By non-attachment to this and through renunciation of even these abilities, one achieves liberation. This (3.49)is again another thing that one must not seek or be attached to.
3.51 Upon the invitation of high-placed beings, he should give himself no cause for attachment or pride, because of the renewed and undesired inclination for lower levels of existence. It seems like all of these sutras, as one becomes more and more unattached, the things that one can gain attachment to grow and grow. In this sutra, it is said that higher beings (gods?) might invite one (to where and what, I have no idea) – one must not be flattered or show pride of such an invitation, and one must not accept such an invitation, as it might renew and regrow ones undesired desires and attachments that one has been striving so hard to distance himself from.
3.52 Through constraint on the moment of time and its sequence he obtains the gnosis born of discernment. So, by concentration, meditative-absorption and enstasy (constrain) on time and its succession and changes, one obtains knowledge of discernment. When I think of what this gnosis is, what this knowledge is and what it is discerning, I can’t help but feel that it is related to time, and our perception of it.
This makes me think of one of the very very very first few things I was exposed to when I just just just started becoming interesting in philosophy. It was from a podcast called the partially examined life, and they were discussing a philosopher, I can’t remember who, that didn’t believe in cause and effect. He felt that when one ball hit another in a game of pool, and that second ball moved off after being hit, that they two events were not related. He felt that it was just our perceiving mind that was trying to make sense of it, and forming a linkage, when really the two events were unrelated. I don’t remember the exact argument, so I am sure I am butchering it and not doing it justice.
I bring that up because, I wonder if the gnosis spoken of in this sutra is related to that. That one realizes that time doesn’t exist, as time is simply a measure of motion. If nothing were to move, there would be no time. Movement implies physical matter. Mind and consciousness are non-physical, so the concept of time might be absurd. I don’t know, but maybe. Imagine your entire life was put on a film reel. Every moment, all captured on a film reel. That film reel exists all at the same time, but it is just the successive looking at each frame along the film reel that gives it the appearance of having an order, and of a series of events happening. When really, the entire reel of your life just is, it is always there, it is just the way that you perceive frame by frame, sequentially, that makes it seem…. yeah, I think you get the idea. I don’t know if that was what this sutra is speaking of, but it makes me wonder.
3.53 Thence arises the awareness of the difference between similar which cannot normally be distinguished due to an indeterminateness of the distinction of category, appearance and position. It seems that now one would becoming more and more aware of the true nature of pretty much everything, including time (3.52). Even similar things, or at least, things that appear similar, are now becoming discernable and known. I think this must involve some sort of stripping away process, knowing the true nature of what that thing is, which in my mind must be that they are mental constructs created in ones own mind.
3.54 The gnosis born of discernment is the ‘deliverer’, and is omni-objective, omni-temporal, and non-sequential. So this knowledge, this gnosis, born of discernment is the ‘deliverer’. This, to me, means it is intuitive, it comes from yourself, as you are the deliverer. It doesn’t come externally from the phenomenological world and experience, but internally from the mind. This gnosis is about all objects, all time, and yet is outside of time (non-sequential). Or perhaps this gnosis isn’t about, but IS all objects, all of time, and yet is instantaneous as it exists non-sequentially. I don’t know!!
3.55 With the attainment of equality in purity of the sattva and the self, the aloneness of the power of seeing is established. Fin.