T.S.

RUKMANI

TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHANA AND NIRODHA IN THE

YOGA-SU
 TRAS

Nirodha and Vyutthana  are two key words in the Yogasutras  (YS.) of
Patan~jali. They are like opposite poles and in I.31 and I.4,2 Patan~jali
brings out this distinction clearly. While in the stage of nirodha the seer
abides in itself, in the vyutthana stage, even though purus. a or citisakti
is the same without change, it does not seem to be so, as it has the
same form as the modification of the mind.3 We could translate nirodha
as ‘total restraint’ and vyutthana  as ‘emergent activity’ due to klesa
or afflictions. They refer to the states of samadhi  (both sam . prajn~ata

and asam . prajn~ 
ata) and non-sam 
adhi respectively. As long as kle a
s
 4
(afflictions) or karmasaya (deposit of karma) holds sway kaivalya or
liberation cannot come into existence.5 The aim of the YS. is to free
purus. a from its association with the mind (gun. as) and attain its true
nature. The system thus appears very clear theoretically, but when one
reads the YS. one is faced with many difficulties.
Yoga is defined as the ‘restraint of the modifications of the mind’.6
Yoga is also used for both types of samadhi.  7 Samadhi is also the
8
last means to yoga. Thus samadhi  stands for two kinds of samadhi 
and also denotes both the means and the end. In addition having two
stages of samadhi (sam. prajn~ata
 and asam . prajn~ata)
 and relegating
. prajn~ata
 to a state of vyutthana . prajn~ata

sam 9 in comparison with asam
further complicates matters. There have been attempts to get over some
of these problems. Thus some commentators have tried to explain these
difficulties but not always in the same way. The various interpretations
only reinforced the belief that yoga was a practical path which, if
done systematically, would lead to kaivalya at the end. It was difficult
unambiguously to lay down the different stages without getting into
some semantic and etymological problems. In experience the transition
from vyutthana to nirodha was perhaps smooth. But the same, when
spelt out in ordinary language, (even when it is the devavan . ı Sanskrit)
gives rise to many problems. Some of them are
 and nirodha;
1) what are the exact definitions of vyutthana

Journal of Indian Philosophy 25: 613–628, 1997.
c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

VICTORY PIPS: 148266 HUMNKAP

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.1
614 T.S. RUKMANI

2) are there many stages in sam. prajn~ata

 and asam . prajn~ata
 samadhi-s;

3) what is the exact relationship between sam . praj ~
n 
ata and
asam. prajn~ata
 samadhi-s;

4) how are words like dharmamegha, anyatakhy atih . , prajn~a,
 .rtam
. bhara
prajn~a,
 viveka, prasam 
. khyana, 
samapatti, nirodha, etc. related;
5) are these words exact synonyms or do they have shades of meaning
within a broad canopy.
These and many more questions arise when one tries to understand
the YS. theoretically.
This paper looks at some of these questions trying to relate them to the
broader categories of vyutthana  or nirodha and also tries to understand
the tension that exists between these two important categories in the
Yoga system of Patan~jali. Patan~jali’s YS., Vyasabh  . ya, V
as acaspati
Misra’s (Misra) Tattvavaisarad ı (Vaisarad
  ı ), Vijn~anabhiks. u’s (Bhiks. u)

Yogavarttika 
(Vartikka), 
Yogasutrabh . yavivaran. a (Vivaran. a) of Sa
as  nkara
_
the Vivaran. akara (VK.) and the Bhojavr. tti (Vr. tti ) have been used
extensively to elucidate the points made.
Let us go back to the first sutra (YS.I.1) in Patan ~jali’s YS. The bhas . ya
here states that yoga is samadhi  and it is a quality or characteristic of
all the mind’s states.10 We are told immediately after, that the states of
the mind are ks. ipta (restless), mud . ha (deluded), viks. ipta (distracted),

ekagra (one-pointed) and niruddha (restricted).11 The doubt that arises
is how can all these states, in particular the first three, have samadhi 
as their characteristic. There is no clear explanation and we are left to
figure it out as best we can. While some effort is taken to refute viks. ipta
qualifying as samadhi, 12 it is assumed that by dismissing viksipta the
.
other two earlier states also have been dismissed by the maxim of
‘defeating the main opponent’.13 But the connection of nirodha and

samadhi to all the states is still hanging in the air. Some commentators
have tried to connect nirodha with those states in keeping with YS.I.2
as follows: in ks. ipta there is restraint (nirodha) of tamas and sattva
gun. as, in mud. ha it is rajas and sattva that are restricted and in viks. ipta
it is tamas alone that is restrained.14
But the definition of yoga as ‘the restraint of the modifications of the
mind’ (I.2) is beset with other problems as well. One of them is noticed
by all commentators, i.e. the word sarva (all) being deliberately left
out in order to include sam . prajn~ata
 under nirodha or yoga. This takes
care of the defect of non-inclusion (avyapti-dos  . a). What this amounts
to is that even some (not all) nirodha (as is present in sam . prajn~ata)

can qualify as yoga. Thus there is a tension developing already in the
very definition. Since sam . prajn~ata
 is also called vyutthana,  in relation

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.2

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 615

to asam . prajn~ata,
 we are left further confused.15 Patan ~jali himself calls
sam . praj ~
n 
ata vyutth 
ana in relation to asam . prajn ~ 
ata in YS.III.9.16 Thus if
the definition in YS.I.2 took care of the defect of non-inclusion, it now
suffers under the defect of over-pervasion (ativyaptidos  . a). By already
mentioning that samadhi  (nirodha) is a state of all stages of the mind
(ks. ipta, etc.) it becomes difficult to resolve the tension between nirodha
and vyutthana.  This led Misra to interpret yoga as the nirodha which
is the cause for the destruction of the afflictions.17 And Bhiks. u gets
over the problem by connecting the second sutra  to the third sutra and
reading them together. Thus according to Bhiks. u that is nirodha which
is the cause for purus. a abiding in itself.18 But can one jump from one

sutra (I.2) to another (I.3) without compromising ekavakyat  a (syntactic
unity)? Bhiks. u stretches the rule of ekavakyat  a in this case and so his
interpretation is suspect. But if that is overlooked the interpretation can
be accepted. Bhoja does not address himself to the problem at all. The
Vivaran. akara (VK.) is not concerned with the implication of nirodha
but argues from the result saying that ks. ipta, mud . ha and viks. ipta cannot
be called samadhi  because in those states the object is not revealed
as it is. Using the analogy of ‘walking’ and ‘stopping’ he argues that
as the end of ‘making known the object as it is’19 is obtained only

in ekagrat  the others are not samadhi.
a,  Now all these commentators
have argued backwards from the result of samadhi  and are begging the
question. This became necessary since the sutra-s  (I.1, I.2) themselves
do not convey the meaning clearly. Misra and the VK. at least stay
within the bhas . ya text to draw out the meaning, whereas Bhiks. u goes
beyond the relevant sutra  and bhas. ya to connect the sense.
Before we move on there is one more question which needs attention.
By defining yoga as samadhi  (I.1 bhas. ya) and then as restraint (I.2),
the relationship between samadhi  and yoga is left hanging loose. Later
in the Sadhanapada, samadhi  is listed under the means to yoga.20 So
now we get a situation where samadhi  is both the means and the end
(yoga); this necessitates a different way of viewing samadhi. 
Bhoja just summarises the relevant sutras  and refrains from getting
into any of the intricacies. While Misra and Bhiks. u accept the necessity
of both yoga-s as two steps leading to the final goal,21 the VK. strikes
a discordant note by denying that there is a relationship of cause and
effect between sam . prajn~ata
 and asam . prajn~ata
 and adding further that
asam . prajn~ata
 is independent of sam . prajn~ata.
 22 As he cannot maintain
this position in the later sutras  23 he contradicts himself and so is not
of great help. As sam . prajn~ata
 is known as sab ıja24 and asam . prajn~ata


indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.3

616 T.S. RUKMANI

as nirbıja25 the cause/effect relationship between the two cannot be

denied.
Many attempts have been made to reconcile this use of samadhi 
in these two senses. The first one is to call nirbıja or asam  . prajn~ata

(nirodha) as the end and the other sam . prajn~ata or sab ıja as the means
to the end.26 Resorting to grammar the meanings of the two have been
justified as end and means as follows. The affix ghan~ has been added
to the root yuj (in the sense of samadhi  )27 as well as in the sense of
instrument of samadhi.  28 Brahmal ına Muni has a new derivation from
sam. + an_ + dh 
a to which the affix ki is added in the above two senses
29
of end and means. But what all this boils down to is that one has to
be aware of the sense in order to know whether samadhi  is being used
as yoga (end) or samadhi  (as means). Thus we are not able to resolve
the difficulty just with the help of the text.
This problem takes on a different colour when we realise that
sam. prajn~ata
 is not just one kind of samadhi  in yoga but a samadhi 
that fluctuates between vyutthana  and nirodha in a number of ways.
Thus we come across four kinds of sam . prajn~ata
 in YS.I.17.30 The
same division is stated in a different manner in YS.I.41.31 Sam . prajn~ata

is described as being fourfold and it is also further added that each
subsequent stage is superior to the antecedent one. The last stage is
asmita sam . prajn~ata
 and the first is vitarka. The others are vicara  and

ananda. 32 If then each of the earlier samprajn
. ~ 
ata is inferior to the final

stage of asmita then, in one sense, they are all vyutthana-s compared 
to the final sam . prajn~ata.
 Another complication is that both Misra and
Bhiks. u admit prajn~a in the sense of ‘knowing the true nature of the
object’33 in the various stages of sam . prajn~ata  mentioned above;34 we
can only reconcile that with the final stage if r. tam . bhara prajn~a that
arises in the earlier stages is graded and considered vyutthana  in com-
parison to the last stage which is called nirvicara  samapatti. 35 It is in

this stage that there is clarity of vision (vaisaradya);  ignoring all that
went before we are told that r. tam . bhar 
a arises in this stage. We already
know that .rtam . bhar a arises in all the above stages; so this only adds
to the confusion.
We must also be aware of a new word introduced in sutra  I.41,36 i.e.

samapatti. Misra glosses over the word as a synonym of sam . prajn~ata.

But Bhiks. u and the VK. understand it as a special, technical word in
Yoga, emphasizing more the result of sam . prajn~ata
 than the process.
The VK. makes an imaginary opponent (purvapaks  . in) raise the question
and implies that samapatti  denotes the accomplishment of the effect.37

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.4

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 617

Bhiks. u makes it very clear that samapatti  means prajn~a and that it is the
result of sam . prajn~ 
ata. 39 If the intention of Patan ~jali was to distinguish

samapatti as the result from samadhi  as the process, one would have
expected him to use it only in YS.I.47, which defines the last stage and
result of sam . prajn~ata.
 But immediately after introducing the word in
I.41 Patan~jali goes on to call even the first stage of sam . prajn~ata
 (i.e.

savitarka) as samapatti. 40 Bhiks. u is not happy with this situation and
tries to give his own interpretation which leaves us further confused.41
He seems to suggest that sam  . a,
. yama (dharan  dhyana  and samadhi  )
as means, concerns itself with the objective aspect of samadhi,  but

samapatti has direct perception of the object or it is a state of oneness
with the object. Thus the end is distinguished from the process of
sam. yama in which samadhi  stands for the means. But this is not at
all plausible, for YS.III.342 also defines samadhi  as oneness with the
object of support. Then what is the difference between samadhi  and

samapatti ?
So even introducing the concept of samapatti  does not get us any
further and the tension between nirvicara  samapatti
 as nirodha and the
other stages as vyutthana  is still very much there. Can we say that the
superior position accorded to the last stage is because of the subtlety
of the objective support and not due to the nature of prajn~a that comes
into being? Prajn~a has only one meaning and it cannot change its sense
with every samadhi state. It is perhaps this dilemma that forces Bhiks. u
to give two different meanings for r. tam . bhara prajn~a-  1) prajn~a is
common to all the states43 and denotes the class prajn~a even when it
arises in the lower states like savitarka, nirvitarka, etc. 2) only prajn~a
that arises in the last stage can be called r. tam . bhara.  This is no help
whatsoever.
There is some more information on prajn~a when we look at the
second chapter on means to yoga. In the Sadhanap   prajn~a takes
ada
on the role of means which is not mentioned in the Samadhip  
ada. In
YS.I.2 we were introduced to the word prasankhy _  44 which is the
ana

same as sattvapurus. anyat  ati
akhy  and dharmameghadhyana  and denotes
prajn~a.
 In YS.II.11 Vyasa mentions dhyana
45  called prasankhy _  as
ana
46
that through which the last stage of yoga is achieved. In YS.I.15 on
the other hand, we were told that prasankhy _  is the capacity of the
ana
mind to see subtle defects and thus help in detachment (vasıkara);  47

therefore vasıkara
 (detachment) and paravas ıkara are the instruments
here. By placing prasankhy _  also under the means and by calling it
ana
 in the second pada, the tension is not resolved.
dhyana

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.5

618 T.S. RUKMANI

Dhyana is the sixth anga _ (means)48 and is below samadhi.  It cannot

be associated with samadhi  or with the end, i.e. prajn~a or prasankhy
_ 
ana.
The instrumentality of prasankhy _  is further developed in II.13 as
ana 49

well. Since nirodha is a state attained and not a process, prasankhy _ 

ana
cannot denote it and will have to be relegated to the position of vyutthana. 
The greatest challenge, however, to the understanding of prajn~a is
YS.II.27,50 which has the word saptadha (of seven kinds) in it. The

sutra itself does not tell us whether prajn~a itself is of seven kinds or
whether the yogı’s prajn~a is of seven kinds. Most commentators51 take
it to refer to the yogı while Bhiks. u takes it to refer to prajn~a itself.52
But whether we accept one or the other interpretation, the point at issue
is the division of prajn~a into seven kinds. We can no longer consider
prajn~a as a standard category which having arisen will gradually lead
to asam . prajn~ata.
 In the seven kinds of prajn~a the third is described as
‘by the samadhi  of restraint, removal of association between purus. a
and prakr. ti has been perceived’.53 One would expect nirodha here to
denote sam . prajn~ata,
 as prajn~a is within the realm of sam . prajn~ata
 and
~ 
the seven types of prajna are being discussed. But we find a crossing
over of boundaries here. From the third type of prajn~a onwards there
is a double meaning attached to prajn~a and there is a crossing over of
boundaries.
In the third stage of prajn~a it is said that hanam
 is directly perceived;54
in the fourth state prajn~a has been accomplished;55 in the fifth, the
intellect has achieved its purpose;56 the sixth is described as the gun. as
merging in their support57 and the seventh is when the purus. a stands
alone, shining in its own nature.58 This whole description of prajn~a is
rather confusing. For one thing the fifth, sixth and seventh stages are all
descriptions of the state of kaivalya in different ways. This is later on
made clear in the Kaivalyapada.  59 Kaivalya looked at from the point of
the gun. as and purus. a can be viewed as the gun. as merging in prakr. ti, or
as having fulfilled their purpose, which is what the fifth and sixth kinds
of prajn~a signify. Kaivalya is really meaningful only with reference to
purus. a, for the gun. as going back to prakr. ti is a reflexive, teleological
process without any consciousness attached. Thus the seventh stage is
that when purus. a shines alone in its true state. The tension is further
aggravated by the fact that the third prajn~a reveals hanam.  Since so
far we have been led to believe that prajn~a is a state of being when
everything is revealed as it truly is,60 this would have to mean that
in this third prajn~a kaivalya is experienced. This is deduced because

hanam is defined as kaivalya in the Yoga system.61 Thus we have a

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.6

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 619

view in II.27 that makes prajn~a serve both the meanings of nirodha
(sam . prajn~ata
 and asam . prajn~ata).
 62
To get the picture straight – firstly we know from our earlier
understanding63 that sam . prajn~ata
 was a vyutthana  state in compar-
ison to the asam . praj ~
n 
ata nirodha, but now within prajn~a itself there is
a division of some prajn~a-s  being kaivalya (hanam)  and others being
those that lead to hanam.  So it must mean that some prajn~a-s  are

vyutthana-s in relation to the last three which are nirodha-s or one
nirodha explained variously. Thus the tension continues. And we are
left with one more problem to resolve, i.e. which is the last stage? Is the
last .rtam. bhara prajn~a the last or the last three of the seven-fold prajn~a
or asam . prajn~ata
 itself? Does this again mean that in experience these
stages are easy to identify, but when put into a text and a language,
defy comprehension and lead to problems of semantics?
We have to also address ourselves to the very many words that yoga
uses almost synonymously. Of the six systems of philosophy Yoga
is perhaps the one school which has a profusion of technical words
used interchangeably. Thus we have dharmamegha, prasankhy _ 
ana,
anyatakhy atih . , sattvapurus. anyat 
akhyatih . , viveka, vivekakhy 
atih . , praj n~a,

.rtam. bhara,  pratibhaj
 n~ana,
 
ekagracitta, sabıjah. and more being used
more or less in the same sense. While some of these words have
already been referred to in the passages above it will be useful to look
at dharmamegha as it is relevant to the vyutthana-nirodha  debate.
Dharmamegha, prasankhy _ 
ana, 
sattvapurus. anyat 
akhyatih .,
vivekakhyatih . , khyatih
 . , asam . prajn~ 
ata, nirb 
ıjah
. are introduced by Vyasa
very early under the second sutra  of the Samadhip   itself.64 Vy
ada asa
does not think it necessary to explain these terms whatsoever at this
stage. He only says that the highest samadhi  having insight into the
difference between purus. a and buddhi 65 is called dharmamegha. So we
think then that it is the same as the nirvicara  samapatti
 mentioned in
I.47.66 As for prasankhy _ 
ana, we have already seen above the confusion
of using prasankhy _ 
ana, as both means and end (prajn~a).  67
Dharmamegha poses some problems as to its exact connotation. Under

sutra I.2 Misra just explains Vyasa’s statement defining dharmamegha
as the highest discernment.68 Bhiks. u also has the same explanation
following Vyasa as the highest prasankhy _  69 The VK. does not
ana.
explain the word but only mentions that dharmamegha is the name of

samadhi. 70 Bhoja does not gloss the word at this stage. The difficulty

again that defies logic is the gradation in prajn~a or anyatakhy  atih . . Thus
Bhiks. u describes dharmamegha in the Yogasarasa  _
ngraha as the highest

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.7

620 T.S. RUKMANI


stage of insight into atman. 71 Can there be a qualitative difference in

the various stages of sam . prajn~ata

 and then only in the last state of
dharmamegha is the true nature revealed? But then all the problems
one faced earlier with prajn~a and sam . prajn~ata
 are being repeated here.
Let us move on to the other places where dharmamegha occurs
and see if there is any further clarification. Bhiks. u in the Yogasara.
again repeats the same definition of dharmamegha in a number of other
contexts.72 At one place he tries etymologically to explain dharmamegha
as the stage when there is ‘rain of excellent dharma’;73 he also says
this is when the yogı is called a jıvanmukta;74 it is also a state when
there is superior detachment;75 it is after this that asam . prajn~ata
 comes
76 77
into being; it is also the stage of omniscience. Now there are so
many attributes to dharmamegha and if it is equated to jıvanmukti one
may also wonder whether the jıvanmukti state in Yoga according to this
view is not true kaivalya but a stage lower than that. So then it leaves
us with the problem of whether Yoga really accommodates jıvanmukti
or if jıvanmukti is also a vyutthana  state prior to the ultimate nirodha
or asam ~ 
. prajnata, wherein alone can kaivalya come into being. Then
is that state a videha moks. a and not a sadeha moks. a?
Are there any guidelines we can get from the YS., the Vaisaradı,
the Vartikka, and the Bhojavr.tti for these questions? Patan~jali himself
uses the word dharmamegha only once in all of the YS. It is significant
that he uses it only in the Kaivalyapada  towards the end.78 It states
that dharmamegha samadhi  comes into being in the highest state of
_  
prasankhyana. Vyasa repeats the idea in his bhas . ya.79 This brings
us back to square one. But what is now becoming clear is that there
are stages of prasankhy _  or prajn~a;
ana  these stages probably are not
gradations in prajn~a itself but the duration of the state of prajn~a itself.
Thus because prajn~a-sam  . skara-s
 
oppose vyutthana-sam 
. skara-s,
80 the

more of the former sam 

. skara-s would lead to finally getting rid of all of
the latter kind. That would then stop vyutthana  arising and then at this
stage the prajna is called dharmamegha, as it is the last of the prajn~a-s;
~  
as Vyasa says ‘he stays in that state at all times’. Another way of
81

stating this is that the yogı practises detachment even towards prajn~a or
_
prasankhy  and then reaches the last mature stage of dharmamegha,
ana
i.e. a continued presence of prajn~a.  YS.IV.30 continues with the same
topic of dharmamegha and mentions that all afflictions and all karma
cease in this stage. Vyasa mentions a yogı in this state as a liberated
one -jıvanmukta.82 Misra and Bhiks. u also repeat the same idea,83 each
in his own way. The VK. departs from both Misra and Bhiks. u by
stating that dharmamegha is so called because ‘it rains the supreme

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.8

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 621

cloud called kaivalya’.84 He probably means that dharmamegha sets

the stage for the rain of kaivalya; otherwise his commentary on the next

two sutra-s 85 mentioning dharmamegha as that which is the mature

form of discernment, does not make sense. He does not expand on the
jıvanmukta concept but repeats what Vyasa says.86 Bhoja expands on
dharmamegha under IV.29.87 and agrees with Vyasa regarding its being
a stage of continuous discerning insight.88 Bhoja, however, does not
use the word jıvanmukta to define such a yogı though his description of
the state as a ‘cessation of afflictions and of karma’89 is tantamount to
the same thing. It is significant though that Bhoja does not talk about
the cessation of the yogi’s karma which is neither bright nor dark but
the cessation of only the threefold karma.
YS.IV.32 continues with the description of the effect of the rise of
dharmamegha.90 Having dealt with the continued presence of discern-
ment and the omniscience and jıvanmukti the text states the same
dharmamegha also frees the gun. a-s from giving rise to further
mutations.91 Having stated the effects of dharmamegha there is no
clue whatsoever to the riddle of jıvanmukti versus asam . prajn~ata
 or
kaivalya. The topic of dharmamegha is dropped and after discussing
what a sequence is in IV.33 the text presents us with the definition of
kaivalya proper in IV.34.92 This brings us to asam . prajn~ata
 and we are
left with the feeling of not fully knowing what dharmamegha really
stands for. So far then what is clear is that sam . prajn~ata
 is a vyutthana 
in comparison to asam . prajn~ata.
 But in sam . prajn~ata
 itself the earlier
stages of savitarka, nirvitarka, etc. are vyutthana-s  in relation to the

last nirvicara. While it is not stated explicitly we also get the feeling
that prajn~a also has gradations and so the prajn~a of nirvicara,  at its
height called dharmamegha, is a nirodha while all others have to be
viewed as vyutthana-s. It also appears that unlike Advaita-Vedanta and
Sankhya
_ the jıvanmukti concept in Yoga is not very well defined. It
seems just slightly lower than the final nirodha. Thus that is also a
vyutthana in comparison to the last nirb ıja.
One point which is not made clear in Yoga is the relationship of

prarabdha-karma (karma that has started yielding result) to prajn~a- 
sam . sk 
ara-s. If praj ~
na sam. sk 
ara-s are capable of destroying all vyutth 
ana-
sam . sk 
ara-s and replacing them with only praj ~
n 
a-sam . sk 
ara-s in turn
to be overcome by asam . prajn~ata
 sam . skara-s, what happens to the

prarabdha-sam 
. skara-s? In dharmamegha-prajn~a the yogı is constantly
in a state of prajn~a;  so only prajn~a-sam
 . skara-s
 are being accumulated.
Logically since all klesa-s and karma cease at this stage there should

not be the prarabdha either. But since a jıvanmukta will have to live

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.9

622 T.S. RUKMANI

in a body which can only be based on karma, Yoga is forced to accept


the prarabdha theory like all the others that believe in jıvanmukti. But
the others do not have stages like Yoga; so even though they have their
own questions to answer,93 for Yoga it is a lot more difficult.
The last stage of asam . prajn~ata
 which is nirodha proper in Yoga is
again beset with problems. To go back to YS.I.2 asam . prajn~ata
 is defined
as a state when it has only subliminal impressions because it restricts
prajn~a or it is detached from prajn~a.  94 It is then called nirb 
ıjasamadhi.
One thing that becomes clear is that asam . prajn~ata
 can only follow
from sam . praj ~
n 
ata generally. 95 YS.I.51 further defines the state of

asam . prajn~ata
 adding that asam . prajn~ata
 subliminal impressions oppose
the prajn~a subliminal impressions. So we have asam
96
. prajn~ata
 the real
nirodha 1) being experienced through its subliminal impressions;97 2)
as opposing the subliminal impressions of prajn~a;  3) called nirb ıja
because it is without seed. Asam . praj n~ 
ata cannot be directly known
as a state of knowledge like sam . prajn~ata because there is no object
to which it relates itself. In that sense it is without a seed (nirbıja).
It is because of its superior status of being without seed that Bhiks. u
raises this state above even Advaita’s jn~ana  and S _
ankhya’s viveka.98
But the question which arises here, as it did in the case of prajn~a
earlier, is whether asam . prajn~ata
 coming into being once will result
in kaivalya or is it something which has to perfect itself and come to
a final asam . prajn~ata
 like dharmamegha in the case of sam . prajn~ata.

There is another dimension to the problem here. In sam . prajn~ata
 we
were told that the last state of dharmamegha is the state of jıvanmukti
which burns away all karma except prarabdha.  The difficulties with
that notion were examined there and no satisfactory explanation was
forthcoming from the texts themselves.
When we now look at asam . prajn~ata as the stage of kaivalya we
naturally assume that prarabdha  is burnt away now. Vyasa does not
state it in so many words but Bhiks. u is very clear on this point. He

says that prarabdha is overcome by asam . prajn~ata
 as it destroys all
. prajn~ata

99
subliminal impressions. But the way Bhiks. u describes asam
in its relation to kaivalya and prarabdha  raises the question of many
asam . prajn~ata
 samadhi-s along with prarabdha being destroyed only in
the last asam . prajn~ata.
 For instance, in the Yogas ara. Bhiks. u says that the
need to define asam . praj ~
n 
ata as having only the residue of sam 
. skara-s
100
is to allow for activity to take place. In fact he uses the very word
 for activity. Our understanding so far is that asam
vyutthana . prajn~ata

cannot arise till dharmamegha is achieved. Once there is detachment
towards dharmamegha, asam . prajn~ata comes into being. So even in

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.10

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 623

the dharmamegha stage vyutthana  has ceased, so how can it come into
being in the stage of asam . praj n~ata?
 This is further aggravated when
Bhiks. u mentions that nirodha is a state having a series of subliminal
impressions alone and in that state the mind will only have sometimes
more and sometimes less of sam 
. skara-s.
101 One can only surmise that

 of the Yogasara. only refers to this rising of asam

the vyutthana . prajn~ata
from the previous asam . praj ~
n 
ata sam. sk 
ara-s.

The prarabdha ‘removal’ poses a difficult problem altogether. Only
. prajn~ata
 gets rid of all prarabdhakarma,

the last stage of asam 102

and only asam . prajn~ata

 can destroy prarabdha  karma.103 First of all

prarabdha will be destroyed for everyone at the time of death, so one
must ask if that is such a great result for asam . prajn~ata.
 In S _
ankhya
and Advaita the reason for prarabdha  continuing for the jıvanmukta
was to account for the continuance of the body. In Yoga, on the other
hand, avidya being destroyed on the rise of dharmamegha, the same
argument would have sufficed even if there were no asam . prajn~ata.

But the necessity of asam . praj n~ 
ata for the sake of kaivalya raises
more questions than it provides answers. If only the last asam . prajn~ata

destroys prarabdha, then what is the difference between dharmamegha
and asam . praj ~
n 
ata? Moreover given the presence of prarabdha  till the
last asam . prajn~ 
ata this will have to be justified through vyutth 
ana in
the other asam ~ 
. prajnata states, which then turns the entire system topsy
turvy.
I know that I have raised a number of difficulties that crop up if
one wants to look at the YS. as a consistent school of philosophy. The
more one looks at the system the more the conviction grows that this is
not something that can be logically described. It is a system which has
brought in a number of ideas from so many sources and tried to make
sense out of them. While it does not fit into a theoretical framework
there is no gainsaying the fact that Yoga was a practical school in which
the various steps of prajn~a and asam . prajn~ata
 were clearly intelligible to
the adept in Yoga. Bhiks. u, for instance, states in no uncertain terms that
he has written down the secrets of Sankhya-Yoga _ as directly experienced
104
by him. This is one school which has believed all along in moulding
the intellect towards the path to kaivalya by following some well laid
down yogic practices. So it is best to accept it as a discipline to be
followed rather than to be understood intellectually.

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.11

624 T.S. RUKMANI

NOTES
1
tada dras. t.uh. svarupe’vasthanam.
2
vr.ttisarupyamitaratra.
3
vyutthane yah. cittavr.ttayah. tadavisis. t.avr. ttih. purus. ah. -Vyasabhas. ya under
YS.I.4.
4
i) klesamulah. karmasayo dr. s. .tadr.s. tajanmavedanıyah. . YS.II.12.
ii) sati mule tadvipako jatyayurbhogah. . YS.II.13.
5
gun. adhikarakramasamaptau kaivalyamuktam. – Vyasa’s introduction to YS.IV.34.
6
yogascittavr.ttinirodhah. . YS.I.2.
7
sarvasabdagrahan. at sam . prajn ~ato’pi yoga iti akhyayate : : : dvividhah. sa yogah.
cittavr.ttinirodha iti : : : VBh. on YS.I.2.
8
YS.II.29.
9
i) asam . prajn ~atapeks. aya sam . prajn ~ato’pyatra vyutthanam boddhyam – Varttika on
YS.I.4.
ii) nirodhasamadhimapeks. ya sam . prajn~ato’pi vyutthanameveti : : : Vaisaradı on
YS.I.3.
iii) tatha ca vyutthanam nirodhasca yogadvayasa dharan. a evatra grahyah. : : : Varttika
on YS.III.9.
10
yogah. samadhih. . sa ca sarvabhaumascittasya dharmah. – VBh. on YS.I.1.
11
ks. iptam, mud. ham, viks. iptam, ekagram, niruddhamiti cittabhumayah. .
12
tatra viks. ipte cetasi viks. epopasarjanıbhutah. samadhir na yogapaks. e vartate.
: : : pradh anamallanirbahananya yena ks. iptamud. hayorapi nis. edhah. kr.tah. . Vivaran. a
13

on YS.I.1.
14
cf. Brahmalinamuni Pata  n~jalayogadarsanam (1970) p. 13.
15
asam . prajn ~atapeks. aya sam . prajn ~ato’pi vyutthanam – Varttika on YS.III.9. Also see
n. 9 above.
16
vyutthananirodhasam. skarayorabhibhavapra durbhavau nirodhaks. an. acittanvayo
nirodhaparin. amah. . YS.III.9.
17
ata eva karmarupan. i bandhanani slathayati. karma catrapurvamabhimatam, karye
karan. opacarat. slathayati svakaryad avasadayati. Vaisaradı on YS.I.1.
18
tada dras. .tuh. svarupe : : : ativyaptih. – cf. T.S. Rukmani, Yogavarttika  of
Vijn~anabhiks
 . u. Vol. I, p. 33.
19
samadhitve satyapi karyakaran. at paks. a ityucyate. yatha gacchatah. pratipadam
vidyamanapi sthitih. sthitikaryakaran. an na sthitirityucyate. viks. epopasarjanıbhutatvam
viks. epasthaikasamadhivyaktyabhipra yen. a sarvabhauma iti tu pradhanyam samanyena
sarvabhumis. u vr. tteh. – Vivaran. a on YS.I.1. cf. Rama Sastri, Krishnamurti Sastri (eds.)
 n~jalayogasutrabh
Pata  . ya-vivaran. am, p. 8.
as
20
yamaniyama’sanapran. ayamapratyaharadharan. adhyanasamadhayo’s. t.a-vang _ ani.
YS.II.29.
21
i) castvartho’ng _ adanginam
_ bhinatti. YS.I.1. Vaisaradı. Narayan. a Misra in his explana-
tion of anga _ and ang _ ı in this context says: angam _ = tr.tıyadhyayatr.tıyasutrapratipadyam
as. t.amamangam _ yogasya. ang _ ı = sam . praj ~
n 
a to’sam. prajn ~atasca, ubhayorapi
yogasabdenabhidhanasya vaks. yaman. atvat. angam _ sam . prajn _ ı
~atasamadhih. , ang
asam . praj ~
n 
a tasam 
a dhiriti kasyacit vy 
a khy 
a nam. cf. N 
arayan . a Mi 
sra (ed.)
 n~jalayogadarsanam, p. 3.
Pata
ii) yadyapi samadhisabdenaikagratatisayarupam
nirodhadvayaru payogadvayasya ngameva _ paribhas. is. yate tathapi
yogadvayamang _ anginorabhedavivaks
_ . ayaiva samadhisabdenoktamevamuttarottarasu tre’pi
bodhyam. cf. Rukmani op. cit. p. 26.

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.12

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 625
22
itascasam . prajn ~atasya laks. an. amihaiva vaktavyam,
sam . prajn ~atanirapeks. o’pyasam ~atah. paravairagaviramapratyayabhyasabhyam
. prajn
sidhyatıtyetatpradarsanartham. Vivaran. a on YS.I.1.
23
i) vyutthanasam . skarasayasya samadhiprajn ~asam . skaren. abhibhavat
: : : vyutth anasam . skaraprabhavah. pratyaya na bhavanti. : : : vyutthanapratyayanirodhe
samadhih. sam . prajn ~ata iva upatis. t.hate. Vivaran. a on YS.I.50.
ii) : : : samadhiprajn~ayattajjanmanasca sam . skarasya nirodhe nirodhakah.
samadhiprajn~ajanitasam . skaradanyo jayate, sa capi yatah. samadhiprajn ~am
tajjanitasam . skaranscatiraskr.tya na janma pratipadyate, tasmatsa nirodhajah. sam . skarah.
samadhijansam . skaranbadhata iti. katham punarasau nirodhajah. sam . skaro’stıti gamy-
ate? vidyamane’pi sa badhako bhavatıti? aha – nirodhasthitikalakramanubhaveneti.
: : : Vivaran . a on YS.I.51.
24
YS.I.46.
25
YS.I.51; YS.III.8.
26
cf. note 21, ii above.
27
yojanam yogah. , from the sutra ‘bhave ghan~ ’ – Muni op. cit. p. 16.
28
yujyate cittamaneneti yogah. , from the sutra ‘karan. adhikaran. ayosca’ – ibid. pp.
16 and 17.
29
i) samadhanam samadhih. – from the sutra ‘upasarge ghoh. kih. ’ gives samadhi in
the sense of the state of samadhi (bhave).
ii) samadhıyate cittamaneneti samadhih. – from the same sutra. This gives samadhi
in the sense of instrument, ibid. p. 17.
30
vitarkavicarananda’smitarupanugamatsam . prajn~atah. . YS.I.17.
31
ks.ın. avr.tterabhijatasyeva man. ergrahıtr.grahan. agrahyes. u tatsthatadanjanata samapattih. .
YS.I.41.
32
cf. YS.I.42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and the VBh. on them.
: : : anvarth a ca sa, satyameva bibharti : : : cf. VBh. on YS.I.48.
33
34
i) atmıyamantah. karan. arupamapidhaya grahyasamapannam grahyatamiva praptamiti
yavat : : : Vaisaradı on YS.I.41.
ii) cf. Rukmani op. cit. pp. 245–246.
35
yada nirvicarasya samadhervaisaradyamidam jayate tada yogino
bhavatyadhya tmaprasado bhutarthavis. ayah. kramananurodhı sphut.ah. prajn~alokah. .
VBh. on YS.I.47.
36
YS.I.41. cf. note 31 above.
37
nanu ca samapattervis. ayam vaks. yati : : : samapattisvarupam ca sam . yamasvaru  pam
taktaryanirvartanenaiva setsyati : : : Vivaran. a under YS.I.41.
38
samapattih. samyagalam . banakaratvapattih. pratyaks. avr.ttirityarthah. . cittasya ceyam
prajn~a’khyavastha sam . prajn~ates. veva bhavati na tu dharan. adhyanasamadhis. u tes. u
samagryen. alam . bagrahan. at : : : cf. Rukmani op. cit. p. 207.
39
abhijatasyeva man. eriti dr. s. t.antopadanam : : : VBh. on YS.I.41.
40
tatra sabdarthajn~anavikalpaih. sank _ ırn. a savitarka samapattih. . – YS.I.42.
41
cf. n. 38 above.
42
tadevarthamatranirbhasam svarupasunyamiva samadhih. . YS.III.3.
43
viparyasarupajn~anam yadyapi savitarkayogajaprajn~ayam sabdarthajn~anavikalpe’sti
tatha’pi r.tam . bharajatıyatvasyaivatra vivaks. itatvat na tasyamavyaptih. . sajatyam
ca samadhijaprajn~atvena. athava tatra samahitacitte jayamana ya prajn~a saiva
r. tam. bharocyata iti su trarthah. . cf. Rukmani op. cit. p. 245.
44
tatparam prasankhy _ anamityacaks. ate dhyayinah. . VBh. under YS.I.2.
45
: : : sattvapurus . 
a nyat akhyatimatram dharmameghadhya nopagam bhavati. ibid.
46
klesanam ya vr.ttayah. sthulastah. kiryayogena tanukr. tah. satyah. prasankhy _ anena
dhyanena hatavya : : : VBh. under YS.II.11.

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.13

626 T.S. RUKMANI

. ayados. adarsinah. prasankhy _ anabaladanabhogatmika heyopadeyasunya

47
: : : cittasya vis
vasıkarasam ~a vairagyam/ VBh. under YS.I.15.
. jn
48
YS.III.2 and YS.III.4.
49
: : : n apanıtakleso na prasankhy _ anadagdhaklesabıjabhavo veti. VBh. under YS.II.13.
50
tasya saptadha prantabhumih. prajn~a. YS.II.27.
51
Bhoja, Misra, VK., Aran 
. yaka.
52
: : : tasya vivekakhy a tirupahanopayasya prantabhumikarupin.ı prajn~a saptadheti
: : : cf. Rukmani op. cit. vol. II, p. 173.
53
Hanam is the removal of contact between purus. a and prakr. ti. cf. YS.II.25 and
VBh. there.
54
saks. atkr.tam nirodhasamadhina hanam. VBh. under II.27.
55
bhavito vivekakhyatirupo hanopaya iti. VBh. under YS.II.27.
56
caritadhikara buddhih. – VBh. under YS.II.27.
57
gun. a girisikharatat.acyuta iva gravan. o niravasthanah. svakaran. e pralayabhimukhah.
saha tenastam gacchanti – VBh. under YS.II.27.
etasyamavasthayam gun. asam . bandhatıtah. svarupamatrajyotiramalah. kevalı purus. a
58

iti. – VBh. under YS.II.27.

59
kr.tabhogapavargan. am purus. arthasunyanam yah. pratiprasavah. karyakaran. atmakanam
gun. anam tatkaivalyam, svarupapratis. t.ha punah. : : : purus. asya citisaktireva kevala, tasyah.
sada tathaivavasthanam kaivalyamiti. VBh. on YS.IV.34.
60
cf. YS.I.47.
61
i) tadabhavatsam . yogabhavo hanam taddr.seh. kaivalyam. YS.II.25.
ii) vivekakhyatiraviplava hanopayah. . YS.II.26.
iii) cf. note 53 above.
62
cf. notes 57, 58 and 59 above.
63
cf. notes 9 and 15 above.
. anyatakhyatimatram dharmameghadhya nopagam bhavati. tatparam
64
: : : sattvapurus
prasankhy _ anamityacaks. ate : : : vivekhyatiriti : : : sa nirbıjah. samadhih. : : : asam ~atah.
. prajn
: : : VBh. under YS.I.2.
65
ibid.
66
nirvicaravaisaradye’dhyatmaprasadah. . YS.I.47.
67
cf. notes 46 and 47 above.
68
dharmameghasca vaks. yate : : : sattvapurus. anyatakhyatimatram cittam dharmamegha-
paryantam param prasankhy _ anamityacaks. ate dhyayinah. : : : Vaisaradı under YS.I.2.
69
dharmameghadhya nam kimityakanks _ . ayamaha tatparamiti : : : taddharmamegha khyam
dhyanam paramam prasankhy _ anam tattvajn ~anam : : : cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I. p. 36.
70
dharmameghadhya nopagam : : : dharmamegho nama samadhih. . Vivaran. a on
YS.I.2.
: : : asyaiva c atmasaks. atkarasya parakas. t.ha dharmameghasama dhirityucyate
71

: : : Yogas arasan. graha. p. 21, published by Motilal Banarsidass, Varanasi (2014

Vikram eta).
72
ibid. pp. 27–29.
73
i) : : : sarvajn~atadijanakam prakr.s. t.am dharmam mehati vars. atıti vyutpattya
dharmameghah. samadhirucyate : : : ibid. 28.
ii) : : : ata eva sarvandharman~jn~eyanmehati vars. ati prakasaneneti dharmamegha
ityucyate. Vaisaradı under YS.IV.31.
74
asyamavasthayam jıvanmukta ityucyate. Yogasara. p. 28.
: : : paravair agyam jayate : : : ibid.
75
76
: : : yadduttaramasam . prajn ~atayoga udetıti : : : ibid.
77
cf. n. 73 above.

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.14

 TENSION BETWEEN VYUTTHA
NA AND NIRODHA IN THE YOGA-SU
 TRAS 627
78
prasankhy_ ane’pyakusıdasya sarvatha vivekakhyaterdharmameghah. samadhih. .
YS.IV.29.
: : : tad asya dharmamegho nama samadhirbhavati. VBh. on YS.IV.29.
79
80
yatastasya na pratyayantaran. i bhavanti tatah. sarvatha vivekakhyatiriti : : : Vaisaradı
under YS.IV.29.
81
: : : na kin ~citprarthayate. tatrapi viraktasya sarvatha vivekakhya tireva bhavatıti
sam . skarabıjaks. ayannasya pratyayantaran. yutpadyante : : : VBh. under YS.IV.29.
82
: : : kle sakarmanivr. ttau jıvanneva vidvanvimukto bhavati : : : VBh. under YS.IV.30.
83
i) kasmatpunarjıvanneva vidvanvimukto bhavati : : : Vaisaradı under YS.IV.30.
ii) tatha ca duh. khanidanatyantocchedaya gaun. amuktitvamiti bhavah. . Varttika under
YS.IV.30; cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. IV, p. 123.
84
kaivalyakhyam param dharmam vars. atıti dharmamegha iti sam . jn~a. Vivaran. a,
p. 363 under YS.IV.30.
85
i) : : : dharameghanamnah. samadheh. samyagdarsanapakabhirupasya bhavat
avidyadayah. : : : vasanabhih. saha samastah. pralınah. bhavanti. Vivaran. a under YS.IV.30.
ii) tada dharmameghasama dhisamaye : : : rajastamojanmabhih. vimuktasya
: : : sattvapurus . anyatakhyatimatrasya bhavatyanantyam. Vivaran. a under YS.IV.31.
86
Vivaran. a, p. 364.
87
prakr. s. t.amasuklakr. s. n. am dharmam paramapurus. arthasadhakam mehati sin~catıti
dharmameghah. . Bhojavr. tti under YS.IV.29.
: : : pratyay antaran. amanudayatsarvaprakaravivekakhya teh. parises. addharmamegha
88

samadhirbhavati. ibid.
89
klesanamavidyadınamabhinivesantanam karman. am ca sukladibhedena trividhanam
jn~anodayatpurvapurvakaran. anivr.ttya nivr. ttirbhavati. Bhojavr.tti under YS.IV.30.
90
tatah. kr.tarthanam parin. amakramasamaptirgun. anam, YS.IV.32.
91
tasya dharmameghasyodaya tkr.tarthanam gun. anam parin. amakramah. parisamapyate
: : : VBh. under YS.IV.32.
92
purus. arthasunyanam gun. anam pratiprasvah. kaivalyam svarupapratis. t.ha va
citisaktiriti. YS.IV.34.
93
Like the presence of the body after jıvanmukti leading to the postulate in advaita
that there is still some residue of avidya left.
. skaropagam bhavati. sa nirbıjah. samadhih. . VBh. under YS.I.2.
94
i) tadavastham sam
ii) tasmanniralam . banadeva jn ~anaprasadamatrattasyotpattiryukta : : : niralam . banah.
sam . skaramatrases. asya niralam . banasya samadheh. karan. amupapadyate
: : : abh avapraptamiva vr. ttirupakaryakaran. annirbıjah. niralam . banah. : : : Vaisaradı under
YS.I.18.
iii) cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I, p. 246.
. prajn~ata
 due to the grace or prasada  of
95
Bhiksu sometimes accommodates asam
Isvara. Varttika under YS.I.23 and YS.II.45. cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I, p. 126; Vol.
II, p. 216.
~akr.tanamapi sam . skaran. am pratibandhı bhavati. VBh. under YS.I.51.
96
: : : prajn

. skarah. samadhijansam . skaranbadhata iti. ibid.

97
i) nirodhajah. sam
ii) cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I, pp. 26 and 27.
98
i) : : : sankhy
_ adidarsananyevamasyaiva mses. u kr.tsnasah. . Nandı verse 4 of the
Varttika.
ii) cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I, Introduction, p. 12.
99
tatra casam . prajn ~atayogenakhilasam . skaradahakena prarabdhakarmapyatikramyata
iti jn~anadvises. ah. : : : cf. Rukmani, ibid. p. 29.
: : : tad . skaramatrases. am cittam tis. t.hati, anyatha vyutthananupapatteh.
100
a sam
: : : Yogas ara. p. 9.
101
cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I., p. 27.

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.15

628 T.S. RUKMANI

102
: : : evam kramen . a caramasam ~ate’khilasam
. prajn . skaradaho bhavati : : : Yogasara,
p. 34.
103
cf. Rukmani op. cit. Vol. I, p. 255 and footnotes on p. 255.
: : : iti s _ rahasyam svanubhavasiddhamupadis. t.am. Yogasara, p. 91.
104
ankhyayogayo

Note: Though the Vaisaradı, Vartikka and Vivaran. a are commentaries on the VBh.
on the YS. for the sake of brevity they are indicated as ‘on’ the YS. in the notes.
Thus, for instance, note 70 says Vivaran. a on YS.I.2. instead of Vivaraņa on VBh.
on YS.I.2.

REFERENCES

 n~jalayogadarsanam (1971). Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan Varanasi.

Misra Narayan. a Pata
Rama Sastri, S.R. and Krishamurti Sastri (1952). Editors. Pata  n~jalayogasutra-

. yavivaran. am. Madras Govt. Oriental Series.
bhas
Rukmani, T.S. (1981–1983, 1987, 1989). Yogavarttika  of Vijn~anabhiks
 . u, Volumes
I–IV. Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, Delhi.
Swami Brahmalına Muni (1970). Pata  n~jalayogadarsanam with Vyasabhas. ya and a
Hindi gloss. CSS. Office Varanasi.
Swami Vijn~anasram (1931). (Hindi Tr.) Pata n~jala-Yogadarsanam with VBh. and
Bhojavr. tti. Madan Bhavan Ajmer.

Yogasarasa _
ngraha. Sanskrit text published by Motilal Banarsidass Varanasi (2014
Vikram era). This corresponds to 1956 C.E.

Department of Religion
Concordia University
Montreal, Quebec H3G 1H8

indi9710.tex; 11/11/1997; 19:03; v.6; p.16