Will we do any practices in class? I think concepts without practice are ineffective.

It is certainly true that we must practice what we learn, otherwise we can’t truly understand it. Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad (2.4.5) explains this:

ātmā vā are draṣṭavyaḥ,
śrotavyo mantavyo nidi-dhyāsitavyaḥ maitreyi

My beloved wife Maitreyi,
to experience that Ātmā,
learn about it,
think about that,
and make it a part of your life.

When we don’t know a subject, we have to learn about it (śrotavya). Whatever we hear when learning we have to carefully think about (mantavya). Then, whatever we think about we have to test by making it a part of our actual being, our daily life (nidi-dhyāsitavya). In other words, we have to put what we learn into practice, or it never becomes real for us.

A teacher cannot hear, think, or practice for the student. All of these are the student’s responsibility. They are the “homework.” So, I will not specifically do “practices” in class. You have to do those between classes!

But fear not, Yoga Sūtra is very practical, and full of specific and general practices!

In my experience, the hard part of practice is knowing what to practice and how to practice it (and this includes the even more difficult subject: why to practice it).  The practice itself is easy and natural when these are clear, but frustrating and almost impossible until then.

What is the best way to translate “vṛtti”?

Vṛtti is the way a thing moves and works. So, I translate it as “function.”

What is the best way to translate “citta vṛtti”?

Citta-vṛtti is the way the mind moves and works, so I translate it as “mental function.”

Pātāñjalī uses the word citta inclusive of its three evolute-components:  ahaṁkāra, buddhi, and manas. So, his “citta”  refers to the combination of memory, identity, intellect, and response. The English word “mind” also references all four ambiguously, so I think the translation “mental function” works well enough. 

How to Achieve “nirodha” – Destruction of Mental Functions? If mind is water… …fire evaporates water …earth holds water…Fire could be tapasya – practice, discipline. Earth could be asana – stillness, steadiness.

Excellent! In the next section, Pātānjalī will start to address the question “how to achieve nirodha?” Similar to your model of fire and earth, he will identify practice and dispassion as the means to achieve nirodha.

I would see air as the enemy of nirodha, because air causes movement (vṛtti). Fire and Earth must dominate air, so water can settle and become waveless.  In other words, practice and dispassion must dominate the mental functions so the mind itself becomes undisturbed by them.

What is the Most Prominent Vṛtti?

Of the five, we normally focus most on “Experiencing” (pramāna, literally “gaining information”). The other four are variations on it.

There are three ways to experience. The one we normally use the most is “Perception”  (pratyākṣa) The other two are variations on it.  (The second is to apply conjecture to perception – Pātāñjalī calls this “anumāna.” The third is to perceive and conjecture about the perceptions of others – Pātāñjalī calls this “āgama”).

So, Perceptive Experience is what most humans spend most of our time doing.

My mind spends most of its time thinking about the past, present and future – not really in perception.

Not everyone is typical. Maybe you are spending most of your energy in Conjecture, or in Imagination. Humans do spend a lot of mental energy in these.

What is the difference between “Conjecture” and  “Imagination”?

“Conjecture” uses our experience of real things to infer the existence of other real things.  “I see smoke in the chimney, so there must be fire in the hearth.”

“Imagination” also uses real experiences, but to generate hypothetical knowledge of theoretical or impossible entities. For example, “a flying elephant.”

The difference between Conjecture and Imagination is a little blurry, because there are different types of unreal things, not all of which are equally or as obviously unreal. Let’s identify three types of unreal things: (1) things that are absent, (2) things that don’t exist, (3) things that can’t exist. Here is an example of each:

(1) “I have no money.”Money does exist, but I have none. It is absent. What do I have? An imaginary thing called “no money.” 

(2) “Floating mountain.”These don’t exist, but mountains and floating things do, so our imagination can envision an imaginary thing: a floating mountain.

(3) “Non-existence.” This can not exist. It is more unreal than a floating mountain. Something like a floating mountain might exist allegorically or in a different perceptual context (The Earth floats in space, so in that allegorical context, it is a real floating mountain). Non-existence, however, literally cannot possibly exist under any circumstance.  Yet still, we can imagine it! How? Because existence is real and negation is real, so imagination can combine the two into a theoretical entity.

In summary, Conjecture allows us to infer real things from other real things, while Imagination allows us to cognize hypothetical things.

Is thinking of the future Imagination or Conjecture?

We first have to decide if the future is real or imaginary.  

The future will exist.  In fact, it already does, because its foundation is the present. Therefore it is not imaginary or unreal.

This doesn’t guarantee that all thought of the future is Conjecture. Let’s evaluate three examples.

“I will be hungry in a few hours.” This is Conjecture (anumāna-pramāna). We use rational thought to make an accurate prediction.

“I will turn into a dog tomorrow.” This is Conjectural Misinformation (anumāna-viparyaya). Flaws in our rational thought lead to an inaccurate prediction. 

“I will have no money.”
“I will become a vampire.”
“I will be non-existent.”
These are three increasing grades of Imagination (vikalpa), because they involve impossible, theoretical entities or states. There is a soft border between conjecture and the first type of imagination (“I will have no money”).

Are thoughts objects of perception?

Yes. This is why we consider Conjecture to be a variant on Perception.

Any object can be directly perceived, perceived by conjecture, or perceived by communication and education. For example, we can see a fire, or conjecture that it is at the base of a pillar of smoke, or be told by someone that it is burning.

These three operations work on thoughts just as well as on physical objects. We can directly perceive an idea. We can conjecture about it. We can learn ideas from others.

Emotions are also objects of perception, and we can experience them directly, or conjecture about the, or communicate and share them. 

What is the difference between Sleep (Nidra) and Imagination (Vikalpa). In sleep do we not dream of things like floating mountains?

Pātāñjalī defines “Sleep” (Nidrā) a little differently than how we use the word in common conversation. He says, “Sleep is the underlying perception, without anything specific being perceived.” Therefore, what does sleep perceive? It perceives the absence of real things. This is how it differs from Imagination and Experience.

Experience perceives real things.
Imagination perceives theoretical things.

Sleep perceives the absence of both, and thus perceives only perception.

Sleep and non-existence are not the same. Unlike non-existence, sleep involves a real thing: the perception of perceptivity itself, which becomes palpable in the absence of other perceptions. 

Pātāñjalī’s “sleep” does not include dreaming. While dreaming, the mind still perceives objects of Conjecture and Imagination.

Pātāñjalī’s sleep has another facet, it serves a “function” (vṛtti) because it allows memories to fade. Not perceiving a mental function causes the impact of that function to dwindle and be forgotten. So, even while we are fully awake, our mind engages in Nidrā towards some memories, causing them to fade.

The “sleep” that happens in “deep sleep” in the middle of the night is when the nidrā-vṛtti is dominant over all the others. The mind actually operates all five vṛtti at all times, but not with equal intensity.

If the mind is the tool of consciousness, why should we destroy its functions?

Because it is malfunctioning, it needs to be shut-down. Its functions need to be terminated, so it can be rebooted without the malfunction. According to Pātāñjalī, without terminating the functions, the malfunction cannot be identified and eliminated.

Is the ultimate goal of yoga to perceive the true self?

Yes. The malfunction is about exactly that. The mind malfunctions by superimposing identity onto itself via its perceptions and functions. If we terminate the functions, the superimposed identities dissolve, and the actual identity of the self becomes evident. With that identity known, the mind can then reboot and function properly.

Does the true self include Paramātmā and Bhagavān?

Yes, soon we will come to the section where Pātāñjalī mentions this explicitly and extensively.

Is Yoga one of the possible Bhakti practices? 

Pātāñjalī’s yoga is adaptable to any and all schools of thought. It is like the template on which any system builds its specific practices. 

In sections coming very soon, we will clearly see that Pātāñjalī’s yoga is inherently theistic. Bhakti-yoga is the inherent orientation of Yoga-Sūta, but non-bhakti schools can easily adapt it to their goals.

Then, why didn’t Bhakti-Rasāmṛta-Sindhu mention yoga?

It did. A person not very familiar with both texts, however, might not notice it.

In Bhakti-Rasāmṛta-Sindhu, Śrī Rūpa defined Sādhana Bhakti with a reference to Nārada’s edict: tasmāt kenapy upāyena manaḥ kṛṣṇe niveśayet – “do whatever you need to do to keep your mind absorbed in Krishna.” This makes it clear that Bhakti-Yoga, exactly like Pātāñjalī’s Yoga, deals first and foremost with the mind – seeking to terminate its normal functions and fix it upon a specified object. 

All the 64 practices, therefore, are tools for this. Śrī Rūpa said so explicitly, by quoting Padma-Purāṇa’s decree: smartavyaḥ satataṁ viṣṇur vismartavyo na jātucit. sarve vidhi-niṣedhāḥ syur etayor eva kiṅkarāḥ – “‘Always remember Vishnu. Never Forget Vishnu.’ Any other injunction or prohibition is just a servant of this rule.”In other words all the 64 practices are meant to assist in terminating the malfunctions of the mind and fixing those functions upon Īśvara. This is exactly the same goal that Pātāñjalī has.

Rūpa starts the practices of Bhakti with injunctions and prohibitions, exactly as Pātāñjalī does with his yama and niyama. 

Pātāñjalī’s practice is usually referred to as dhyāna (meditation). Śrī Rūpa enumerated dhyāna as the 46th of the 64 bhakti practices.

If Yoga-Sūtra and Bhakti-Rasāmṛta-Sindhu are so similar, why did Śrī Rūpa bother to write Bhakti-Rasāmṛta-Sindhu?

Pātāñjalī designed his Sūtra to be very adaptable to any spiritual or psychological context. This is its great asset, but also makes it somewhat “generic.”Specific systems therefore use it as the foundation on which they build their specific outlooks and practices. 

Śrī Rūpa draws on it (and to its sources and analogs, Gītā and Bhāgavatam) to create a manual specifically for the Gauḍīya Bhakti of Śrī Caitanya, which has a unique characteristic of  abundant unrestricted divine intimacy and passion.

Is Pātāñjalī’s Yoga Sūtra older than Gītā or Bhāgavatam?

Modern scholars date Pātāñjalī between -200 and +300.

They date Gītā between -500 and 0.

They are therefore from a similar era, with Gītā coming first by two or three centuries.

Scholars are very uncertain about how to date Bhagavatam. Their theories are very hypothetical and range from 200 to 1,000.  Whatever the specifics, it clearly comes after Gītā, and tradition agrees with this.

Interestingly, the first and primary commentary on Yoga-Sutra is attributed to Vyāsa, the author of Gītā and Bhāgavatam.